When belief hurts others

[stemelbow]

In the rudeness thread I had quoted from lds.org.

Quote

He said the changes were necessary because the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

This is a quote from Elder Christofferson as he justified the Nov 2015 policy in considering those that are gay, or in gay relationships, apostates from the Church. 

Pushing back on the theme of rudeness Scott Lloyd said,

Quote

That is, in your view, a Church leader cannot even teach the law of chastity without you considering it rude, regardless of the terminology he uses.

I have to ask, when a teaching from a religion hurts another, how shall we approach that teaching?  I think Scott is trying to suggest that gay marriage breaks the law of chastity and thus, it's not rude to tell those who are gay that they participate in a "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline". 

Sorry to go back to this, but it works as a great example for this discussion, but, back when the priesthood ban was in effect, the teaching, officially sanctioned at different times, was that the ban had an explanation or multiple explanations.  So let's go back a little bit, and I'm sure most if not al of us are aware of this stuff.  In 1947 Lowry Nelson was approached by an old friend about doing missionary work in Cuba.  Mr. Nelson was familiar with Cuba having had lived there and done some research there.  Bro Nelson responded he didn't like some of the things his friend had said regarding race and objected to the church's teaching.  He ended saying:

Quote

I repeat, my frankness or bluntness, as you will, is born of a fervent desire to see the causes of war rooted out of the hearts of men.  What limited study I have been able to give the subject leads me to the conclusion that ethnocentrism, and the smugness and intolerance which accompany it, is one of the first evils to be attacked if we are to achieve the goal of peace. 

 

Bro Lowry then sent a note to the first Presidency, asking for clarification, appealing, if you will, to the leadership to denounce the hurtful doctrine and practice.  In part it said,

Quote

As I told Heber (the bro who first approached him with the question), there is no doubt in my mind that our Church could perform a great service in Cuba, particularly in the rural areas, but it would be far better that we not go in at all, than to go in and promote racial distinction.

The Church responded, digging in it's heels:

Quote

your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life theretofore.

Mr. Nelson then told the First Presidency of the Church all of the problems and hurt caused by the doctrine that had been explained.  I won't quote but follow the link and read up if you like. It's one of the finest letters in all of MOrmon history though, so if you haven't read it, please do. 

The 1st Presidency wrote back saying, in part:

Quote

Our testimony is that they (the doctrines regarding race) are true.  Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well-founded they may seem to be.  We should like to say this to you in all kindness and in all sincerity that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. 

Years later a letter was sent by the secretary to the First Presidency (David O'McKay was president then)  to Bro Nelson threatening him which said, in part:

Quote

when a member of the Church set himself up against the doctrines preached by the Prophet Joseph Smith and by those who have succeeded him in the high office which he held, he is moving into a very dangerous position for himself personally.

Read the exchange in full:  https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n11/mode/1up

 

Is the Church, and therefore Scott who follows, going to follow the same path the church did 60-70 years ago?  Shall we tolerate hurtful doctrine in the name of digging in heels lest we come off as not knowing all? 

Of course it's rude to condemn another who thinks he is doing no wrong.  You can complain all you want that the rudeness is justified but that doesn't make it not rude.  The question I have is, shouldn't we be wise, particularly considering past mistakes, and step back before we get draw hard conclusions about others?  I'm disappointed in the way the Church has handled these issues.  Should we not feel compassion and let that lead our way rather than tradition and fear of change? 

[USU78]

You believe homosexuality is inborn and immutable. Otherwise this incessant appeal to the priesthood ban's lifting by G-d would be groundless.

Got it.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You believe homosexuality is inborn and immutable. Otherwise this incessant appeal to the priesthood ban's lifting by G-d would be groundless.

Got it.

I believe even the Church has come around to thinking homosexuality is inborn and immutable.  It's taken a while, but progress has been made.  Hopefully sooner rather than later more steps forward will be taken. 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have to ask, when a teaching from a religion hurts another, how shall we approach that teaching?  I think Scott is trying to suggest that gay marriage breaks the law of chastity and thus, it's not rude to tell those who are gay that they participate in a "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline". 

I've wondered this as well.  I think the challenge is in the way people interpret what is the ultimate cause of the hurt.  

1.  In the scenario of same sex marriage breaking the law of chastity paradigm, God's law existed from the beginning, so the people that practice same sex marriage are deserving of any hurt that they receive because they are in violation of this law.  Essentially this is a justification for any discriminatory behaviors towards the same sex couple.  

2. The other argument is that discrimination is not justified no matter what and irrespective of law, tradition, social convention, etc.  Discrimination towards the same sex couple is wrong universally in this paradigm.  

I think this is the equation that is constantly being argued over.  People that identify with argument #1, feel like their position is justified, and react poorly to critiques by argument #2 proponents.  

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I believe even the Church has come around to thinking homosexuality is inborn and immutable.  It's taken a while, but progress has been made.  Hopefully sooner rather than later more steps forward will be taken. 

CFR

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You believe homosexuality is inborn and immutable. Otherwise this incessant appeal to the priesthood ban's lifting by G-d would be groundless.

Can you supply a recent quote from a church leader stating that being gay is a choice?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Can you supply a recent quote from a church leader stating that being gay is a choice?

Did I say it was? I myself think it can be. And often is.  Elder Oakes has given the most cogent and fair statement, and everything since has been commentary: its origins are poorly and may never be understood, but G-d's law is clear and unambiguous on the subject.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In 1947...

Obviously, we should not be rude. We can accomplish this by being factual and loving (i.e. truthful) at the same time.

I think you are using too much rhetoric in mischaracterizing the motives of the Church representatives in these letters as “digging in their heels”. I also think you are doing the same thing with today's' Church representatives, characterizing them as lacking compassion and leading by tradition and fear of change.

I also think you’ve overlooked that Brother Lowrey was asked for his professional opinion on Cuban mission strategy and instead pushed himself into general Church policy by boorishly foisting his unsolicited personal opinions beyond the point of being welcome.

Edited July 14, 2017 by CV75

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did I say it was? 

Just trying to understand what you believe.  Do you believe being gay is inborn or do you believe it is a choice?

[Storm Rider]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is the Church, and therefore Scott who follows, going to follow the same path the church did 60-70 years ago?  Shall we tolerate hurtful doctrine in the name of digging in heels lest we come off as not knowing all? 

Of course it's rude to condemn another who thinks he is doing no wrong.  You can complain all you want that the rudeness is justified but that doesn't make it not rude.  The question I have is, shouldn't we be wise, particularly considering past mistakes, and step back before we get draw hard conclusions about others?  I'm disappointed in the way the Church has handled these issues.  Should we not feel compassion and let that lead our way rather than tradition and fear of change? 

First, I think you are confusing the term rude - based on the definition I don't see how it is rude to condemn homosexual behavior.  You seem to conflate rude with causing "harm" to another.  That is not what rudeness is and never has been.  What you seem to be saying is if what an individual says hurts another's feelings should.....whatever.

The best example that I know of is the Savior response to the woman caught in adultery.  He would not condemn her - he continued to love her - but his counsel was go and sin no more.  There is no need to constantly condemn a gay individual for living a gay lifestyle.  When asked about our thoughts - it is go and sin no more.  

The racial issue and the choice of living a gay lifestyle have nothing in common.  A person's race is strictly related to one's DNA and there is no scientific foundation that supports such a claim for gay people.  

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've wondered this as well.  I think the challenge is in the way people interpret what is the ultimate cause of the hurt.  

1.  In the scenario of same sex marriage breaking the law of chastity paradigm, God's law existed from the beginning, so the people that practice same sex marriage are deserving of any hurt that they receive because they are in violation of this law.  Essentially this is a justification for any discriminatory behaviors towards the same sex couple.  

2. The other argument is that discrimination is not justified no matter what and irrespective of law, tradition, social convention, etc.  Discrimination towards the same sex couple is wrong universally in this paradigm.  

I think this is the equation that is constantly being argued over.  People that identify with argument #1, feel like their position is justified, and react poorly to critiques by argument #2 proponents.  

Rudeness can be (but shouldn't be) applied in both scenarios.

The acting poorly toward those of another paradigm goes both ways, as does acting well.

[USU78]

Just now, ALarson said:

Just trying to understand what you believe.  Do you believe being gay is inborn or do you believe it is a choice?

I find no convincing evidence that it is. I've been following the research on and off for decades now (since the 70s). 

That I think the desire is largely situationally caused, like much in human behavior, should be clear. Behavior upon desire, however, tends to be elective. 

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

CFR

Well let's set it straight for the thread then.  On the Mormon and gay website under teachings it says:

Quote

“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction” (Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction”, 2006).

Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. Elder M. Russell Ballard stated:

“Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” (“The Lord Needs You Now!” Ensign, Sept. 2015, 29).

So it seems, unless there is something else more official, the Church doesn't take a position on whether same sex attraction, as it's called in the Church, is inborn or not.  But, I suppose the second quote might enlighten some on the question--"individuals do not choose".  This may suggest two things--that an individual is inborn with the attraction, and that it won't change.  But that's taking it too far.  The positive is the Church is open to such possibilities.  In truth, as per this discussion, it doesn't matter. 

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hurtful doctrine

It's only doctrine, and only hurtful if you dwell on it too much or if you dwell on it at all without doing anything about it (whether you believe the doctrine or not).

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well let's set it straight for the thread then.  On the Mormon and gay website under teachings it says:

So it seems, unless there is something else more official, the Church doesn't take a position on whether same sex attraction, as it's called in the Church, is inborn or not.  But, I suppose the second quote might enlighten some on the question--"individuals do not choose".  This may suggest two things--that an individual is inborn with the attraction, and that it won't change.  But that's taking it too far.  The positive is the Church is open to such possibilities.  In truth, as per this discussion, it doesn't matter. 

Thank you.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Obviously, we should not be rude. We can accomplish this by being factual and loving (i.e. truthful) at the same time.

I think you are using too much rhetoric in mischaracterizing the motives of the Church representatives in these letters as “digging in their heels”.

That's not a matter of motive.  It is what they did.  When challenged, they did not change their position or offer the possibility they are wrong, but dug in their heels.  So I'm not sure what you mean by mischaracterizing.  I'd appreciate some explanation. 

Quote

I also think you are doing the same thing with today's' Church representatives, characterizing them as lacking compassion and leading by tradition and fear of change.

I would not say there is no compassion.  But just that, it seems to me, without further light and knowledge being revealed, they are lead far more by tradition and perhaps fear of change on this topic than compassion. 

Quote

I also think you’ve overlooked that Brother Lowrey was asked for his professional opinion on Cuban mission strategy and instead pushed himself into general Church policy by boorishly foisting his unsolicited personal opinions beyond the point of being welcome.

I didn't overlook that.  That is why he's a personal hero to me.  that interaction is awesome in that it details precisely how the leaders of the Church were wrong (remember the 2013 essay saying as much) and the lay member was correct (remember how today the Church has adopted his view).  To think if they just adopted his view back then....would have been great.  Too bad they were too stubborn, too in love with tradition and fear of change that they weren't willing to change away from evil and weren't willing to embrace that which is true. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's only doctrine, and only hurtful if you dwell on it too much or if you dwell on it at all without doing anything about it (whether you believe the doctrine or not).

No.  You're wrong, of course.  It can be hurtful even if someone does something about it and doesn't dwell on it. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I find no convincing evidence that it is. I've been following the research on and off for decades now (since the 70s). 

That I think the desire is largely situationally caused, like much in human behavior, should be clear. Behavior upon desire, however, tends to be elective. 

I think I've asked you and Scott both if you knew someone personally, even possibly related, that is gay. But neither of you answered. It would open your eyes that it isn't a always a choice. Many, like my nephew on my husband's side, want to take their life, his parents never knew if he'd be alive the next morning. They found a rope in his room, and didn't know what he would do next. This was a catalyst to my being supportive of the gays having a choice. I hope eventually I would have anyway. 

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

No.  You're wrong, of course.  It can be hurtful even if someone does something about it and doesn't dwell on it. 

I'm reminded of Reagan's tale of the Presbyterian minister who was kept up nights, worrying that somehow, somewhere, someone was having a good time.

[Maestrophil]

Can you please put a little more succinctly a summarized version of what you are asking?  When do you think, in our time, specifically, that belief hurts others?  Are you saying or suggesting, that it is always rude to call out sinful behavior (as defined by the LDS Church) as such?

 

 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think I've asked you and Scott both if you knew someone personally, even possibly related, that is gay. But neither of you answered. It would open your eyes that it isn't a always a choice. Many, like my nephew on my husband's side, want to take their life, his parents never knew if he'd be alive the next morning. They found a rope in his room, and didn't know what he would do next. This was a catalyst to my being supportive of the gays having a choice. I hope eventually I would have anyway. 

 

Perhaps because neither one of us wishes to personalize this? Can you see why there's virtue in such a strategy?

[ttribe]

I guess I have to take some exception to the idea stated in the thread title.  I question the likelihood that the mere harboring of a belief is harmful to others.  However, the expression of that belief can be quite harmful.  So, the belief that acting on homosexual feelings is sinful is not, by itself, harmful to others because it can simply be ignored.  If I am a missionary teaching a genuinely interested investigator who is gay that this is the position of the Church, I would consider that appropriate (if properly presented, of course).  If, however, I am in the habit of seeking out every opportunity to declare to any and all that acting on homosexual feelings is an abomination, I've probably crossed the line into harmful territory.  Taken to its extreme, we get the Westboro Baptist Church.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

First, I think you are confusing the term rude - based on the definition I don't see how it is rude to condemn homosexual behavior.  You seem to conflate rude with causing "harm" to another.  That is not what rudeness is and never has been.  What you seem to be saying is if what an individual says hurts another's feelings should.....whatever.

Well, I'm not sure how to respond.  it sounds like you simply disagree that the teaching can come off as rude or hurtful to another.  I disagree.  It can and quite often has. 

 

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The best example that I know of is the Savior response to the woman caught in adultery.  He would not condemn her - he continued to love her - but his counsel was go and sin no more.  There is no need to constantly condemn a gay individual for living a gay lifestyle.  When asked about our thoughts - it is go and sin no more.

That's the point you're no savior.  You don't define things.  Just because past leaders condemned interracial marriage, for instance, doesn't mean the Savior did. 

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

The racial issue and the choice of living a gay lifestyle have nothing in common.  A person's race is strictly related to one's DNA and there is no scientific foundation that supports such a claim for gay people.  

What is in common?  The Church was wrong about both issues, didn't know enough about them, and have spoken presumptuously.  Just as they spoke with little light and knowledge on the race issues, and were completely wrong when they did speak about the issue, they do so now about homosexuality.  But we'll see how the Church continues to evolve on this issue.  It was completely impossible to think the Church would accept the notion that a gay person's inclinations can't change or that their inclinations weren't a choice years ago.  Today the Church is more open to accepting such, even if overall, the Church is way behind in terms of progress or evolving to a level of truth. 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Too bad they were too stubborn, too in love with tradition and fear of change that they weren't willing to change away from evil and weren't willing to embrace that which is true. 

Wow.  I can understand disagreeing with decisions made by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but to come right out and call their actions or beliefs evil...leaves me kind of speechless. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I have to ask, when a teaching from a religion hurts another, how shall we approach that teaching?  I think Scott is trying to suggest that gay marriage breaks the law of chastity and thus, it's not rude to tell those who are gay that they participate in a "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline". 

It seems to me two issues are being conflated that muddles the discussion quite a bit. The first is whether it's OK for religion or any other ideology to say something is grievous or a serious sin. The second is whether it's rude to tell a person that they are doing something abominable, grievous or so forth.

Those simply aren't the same. I might in Sunday School say adultery is an abomination. I don't think that's particularly rude at all. Going up to some person I know committed adultery and saying, "you're doing an abomination," typically would be seen as rude.

A second issue is over general appropriateness. I assume those objecting to rudeness don't think condemning robbing, racism, emotional abuse and so forth is bad. If I hear someone yelling racist things at a person, I don't think most in this thread would consider me acting inappropriate were I to tell them they were acting abominably. But the question is why?

My guess is we've bought into a certain libertarian conception where something is wrong if it causes direct harm in an intentional way but not if it there's no intent to commit harm. This gets tricky though since of course it's socially acceptable to condemn structural racism, sexism or so forth. Yet those are unintentional and typically very indirect. 

I tend to think really what's going on is just a dispute over what is or isn't considered bad. Those objecting to saying various sexual sins are abominable or so forth really say that only because they don't really think they are sins or at least aren't problematic. That is I'm far from convinced these objections could be made in a fashion that accepts basic pluralism where there's disagreement over the basic moral standards.