When belief hurts others

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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

No, I don't understand. Being gay to me, isn't a horrendous thing that you need to hide, just like being transgendered. But maybe that's not what you're saying.

But I understand that some feel it is something to be hid, again, not saying you think that. But I will now let it go. And not ask again. 

ETA: The "you" doesn't mean you or Scott, it's used generically. Hope you knew that.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

I'm not seeing the difference--saying gay marriage is a particularly grievous type of sin is calling it an abomination in my view.  There's definitely nicer ways to put things when expressing our disagreements of course, though.  

For instance, before 2015 policy I had a couple of active friends in the Church who were gay.  Afterward, they aren't.  Just the other day one of these friends, who still feels quite fond fo the Church in many ways, expressed how he felt pushed out and rejected by the Church--thus felt hurt over it.  Felt rudeness with the policy.  Yet the policy was just defining doctrine, no?  I think if we accept the teachings, like in the policy, then we have to accept that they hurt people and are rude to people. 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

No, I don't understand. Being gay to me, isn't a horrendous thing that you need to hide, just like being transgendered. But maybe that's not what you're saying.

But I understand that some feel it is something to be hid, again, not saying you think that. But I will now let it go. And not ask again. 

Personalizing the argument can lead to hard feelings, often leading to worse, far worse than an exchange of serious words. If you make the argument about the issue, it's rare that blows, real or figurative, ensue.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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. 

Really?  Was not the teachings of the Church as per the being less valiant and/or being cursed because of their heritage evil?  I think the Church condemns such teaching today:

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[thesometimesaint]

If Christ was tempted in all things and didn't sin. Then there is no sin in the temptation just what we do because of it.

[Danzo]

10 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. 

Which is it? do they have a choice or do they not have a choice.  You seem to want to have it both ways.

The whole argument seems to be that some people are not free. That Christ's atonement has missed some  people..

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given."

Perhaps this scripture does not apply to some people.  Is that what you are saying? Perhaps Lehi forgot to mention that some people are not free to "act for themselves"? That they can only be "acted upon"?

 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Which is it? do they have a choice or do they not have a choice.  You seem to want to have it both ways.

The whole argument seems to be that some people are not free. That Christ's atonement has missed some  people..

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given."

Perhaps this scripture does not apply to some people.  Is that what you are saying? Perhaps Lehi forgot to mention that some people are not free to "act for themselves"? That they can only be "acted upon"?

 

I think the studies show both. And that some are bi-sexual. Recently my good friend's daughter cancelled her wedding, even with all the invites sent out. Before the boyfriend asked her daughter to marry him he told my friend and husband that he has some issues with same sex attraction (maybe he's having a tough time believing he may be gay?) But I don't know the whole story. But they gave him their blessing anyway. And now this, but again, the whole story hasn't come out.  

I just know what my husband's nephew and many others have gone through. And that most have a real dislike with the thought of being with someone of the opposite sex, much like a heterosexual may feel about being with the same sex. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

 

Quote

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.

 

Allow me to clarify, I do think it's ok for a religion to say something is a grievous or a serious sin.  I would only point out, though, that calling it a grievous or serious sin is saying it's an abomination.  The question in the other thread dealt with whether the word abomination was rude when applied to SSM, or something. 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

You got it then. 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

To be more clear, it has less to do with sexual sins and more to do with SSM.  The quotation from the Church is that SSM is a grievous sin, not same sex relations. 

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the studies show both. 

No agency for some people then.

[thesometimesaint]

Males seem to have a genetic predisposition to inseminate as many females as possible. That is no excuse for human males doing so.

Edited July 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Jeanne]

No religion should hurt others..what a poor example of the Savior's teachings ...especially when it is so deliberate and obvious.  Digging in the heels of LDS doctrine shows a defiance of love and acceptance which is what the Savior taught.  For me, this is the bottom line..there is doctrine that does not adhere to love ye one another.   There are things we still do not know about a lot of things that we call sin...until we do, we ought to treat all with the grace and the tolerance of what religion is all about.

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the studies show both. And that some are bi-sexual. Recently my good friend's daughter cancelled her wedding, even with all the invites sent out. Before the boyfriend asked her daughter to marry him he told my friend and husband that he has some issues with same sex attraction (maybe he's having a tough time believing he may be gay?) But I don't know the whole story. But they gave him their blessing anyway. And now this, but again, the whole story hasn't come out.  

I just know what my husband's nephew and many others have gone through. And that most have a real dislike with the thought of being with someone of the opposite sex, much like a heterosexual may feel about being with the same sex. 

And it is a hard thing to see.  My stepson lost his partner to suicide after 7 years together..it was difficult to watch someone you love go through the very ache I went through when my husband died.  (No ...this is not about Jeanne)..but it is about the same kind of love and devotion...it is real..how I wish that churches would just get over this..it is sad and it hurts and after all is said and done..it is just plain unnecessary stupidity.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Jeanne

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No religion should hurt others..what a poor example of the Savior's teachings ...especially when it is so deliberate and obvious.  Digging in the heels of LDS doctrine shows a defiance of love and acceptance which is what the Savior taught.  For me, this is the bottom line..there is doctrine that does not adhere to love ye one another.   There are things we still do not know about a lot of things that we call sin...until we do, we ought to treat all with the grace and the tolerance of what religion is all about.

Horse puckey.

"Go and sin no more" has to mean something.

And demonizing scripture concerning degrees of allowance and unclean things is not a useful approach, I've found.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

And it is a hard thing to see.  My stepson lost his partner to suicide after 7 years together..it was difficult to watch someone you love go through the very ache I went through when my husband died.  (No ...this is not about Jeanne)..but it is about the same kind of love and devotion...it is real..how I wish that churches would just get over this..it is sad and it hurts and after all is said and done..it is just plain unnecessary stupidity.

This is an example, Tacenda, of why personalizing is a terrible idea. Can you see why?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

This is an example, Tacenda, of why personalizing is a terrible idea. Can you see why?

Glad that you could use me as an example.  Thanks.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Glad that you could use me as an example.  Thanks.

Any time. 

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No religion should hurt others..what a poor example of the Savior's teachings ...especially when it is so deliberate and obvious.  Digging in the heels of LDS doctrine shows a defiance of love and acceptance which is what the Savior taught.  For me, this is the bottom line..there is doctrine that does not adhere to love ye one another.   There are things we still do not know about a lot of things that we call sin...until we do, we ought to treat all with the grace and the tolerance of what religion is all about.

I'm really not at fault if your feelings are hurt by what I believe. You demand tolerance by us, but neglect it by others.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm really not at fault if your feelings are hurt by what I believe. You demand tolerance by us, but neglect it by others.

You are right.  I will try and refrain from doing this to you and others.  It is not that I demand tolerance..I just can't see why it is so difficult..but I need to work on this myself and I know that.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Any time. 

You seem to be an example yourself..of many things that I don't see in other mormons or the faith itself. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

I agree, but would like some examples shared so I understand what you're saying about the argument #2 people. For example, if an argument #2 person says that discriminating against same sex marriage is immoral and unfair, does that qualify as being rude to the argument #1 crowd?  

[ttribe]

50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not seeing the difference--saying gay marriage is a particularly grievous type of sin is calling it an abomination in my view.  There's definitely nicer ways to put things when expressing our disagreements of course, though.  

For instance, before 2015 policy I had a couple of active friends in the Church who were gay.  Afterward, they aren't.  Just the other day one of these friends, who still feels quite fond fo the Church in many ways, expressed how he felt pushed out and rejected by the Church--thus felt hurt over it.  Felt rudeness with the policy.  Yet the policy was just defining doctrine, no?  I think if we accept the teachings, like in the policy, then we have to accept that they hurt people and are rude to people. 

I see where you are coming from, but was there any question as to the Church's position on homsexuality pre-2015?  I guess I view the policy as an expression of that belief that potentially resulted in harm, not the belief itself.  I'm generally not into slippery-slope arguments, but it seems a very slippery-slope to me to say that the mere belief is harmful; we seem to be headed toward attempting to exert a level of control over people and organizations that is quite inappropriate.  

Edited July 14, 2017 by ttribe

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

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. 

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. 

Using the phrase, “digging in their heels”, in the Monday morning quarterbacking of 70-year old correspondence, is condemning LDS leadership’s supposed obstinacy against their being told the supposed right thing to do, which comes across as polemic (and in a notably rude way).

It is easy to say that the light and knowledge reflected in Church doctrine or policy on a subject translates to tradition and fear. But all we can live by is the light and knowledge we have. If someone feels he has more, all the more reason not to be as boorish (rude by eh way) about it as Brother Lowrey was in imposing his own (apparently heavily socioideologically-informed) doctrine at the expense of the faith of others. I do not think he serves as a good role model, and he may have been "right" in one parochial sense but incredibly wrong in the final analysis, and here is how:

In His communications to the prophets, the Lord seems to equate the right things to do with their expediency. Do a word search in the scriptures of “expedient” (especially in  D&C) for lots of examples of this, and consider how things might have played out had the “right thing to do” per a conflicting assessment that was made without the delegated keys had been done. Doctrine, strategy, the use of spiritual gifts, the fulfillment of prophecy and more are all covered.

48 minutes 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. 

Well, if you don't believe it, and/or don't dwell on it, the doctrine isn't hurting you even if someone else insists that it is. Doing something with only a casual acknowledgement of the doctrine is indicative that no harm is perceived as coming from the doctrine.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, but would like some examples shared so I understand what you're saying about the argument #2 people. For example, if an argument #2 person says that discriminating against same sex marriage is immoral and unfair, does that qualify as being rude to the argument #1 crowd?  

It depends on how he expresses himself and how he is heard, just like someone saying #1 to #2. Empathy for the human condition serves as an ideal baseline in sharing strongly-held beliefs, especially/even when they are in apparent opposition.

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are right.  I will try and refrain from doing this to you and others.  It is not that I demand tolerance..I just can't see why it is so difficult..but I need to work on this myself and I know that.

I think tolerance is hard for all of us. The old Beam vs Mote in the Eye argument is very seductive. It's no excuse, but it is there.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

 

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. 

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. 

Stemmel, 

I just disagree on using the term "rude" to describe blunt, direct language.  Simply because a person gets their feelings hurt has nothing to do with being rude - it is only a terminology issue for me.  I don't have a problem accepting that someone gets their feelings hurt - but it is not due to rudeness in this instance.

I agree with you on the racial issue.  I think the Brethren can be wrong and have been wrong in the past.  However, just because you, me, or the Brethren have been wrong in the past does not equate to being wrong all the time.  

I think you have to really, REALLY stretch to conclude the scriptures do not condemn gay behavior.  What makes you think our society is so much more enlightened simply because we have accepted it as normal?  By what standard does that indicate it is actually acceptable?  Why are they right and all of history be wrong?  What changed to make it right?

No, I am no savior and I have never claimed to be, but I do know sin.  I know the guilt one has from all sin.  Please, don't try and tell me that gay behavior or any other sinful behavior is not sin.