Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. I tried to track down who it was that coined the term, and I struck out. I feel reasonably confident it was not the Church. GLAAD isn't exactly in the habit of using terminology coined by religious groups. It is such a straight-forward, objective term it is hard to think of it as a coinage. It is like “drug-free” in that respect.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I’ve said it was mostly people of a certain ideological position, not necessarily members of the church. Well you’re definitely not the first person here to have grumbled about the use of the term.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Well you’re definitely not the first person here to have grumbled about the use of the term. You seem to believe the phrase is so straightforward and objective that it’s irrational to object to its use. So, why do you think people like me have grumbled about it? Did we just arbitrarily pick a phrase to dislike? Is it because we are biased against the religious? I mean, I and others have explained why we think it’s problematic, and obviously you find our reasoning to be without any merit. So, how about it? What’s the real reason? 2
Amulek Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 I have a fairly laissez-faire attitude about the whole naming convention thing. I don't have any problem with the term "gay," so if that's what some people prefer then I'm okay with that. Here's the thing though - and maybe somebody has already touched on this; if so, feel free to move on - the term "gay" is kind of a slang term whose meaning has changed over time. If the meaning shifts again in the future, so that it's use is no longer considered acceptable, I don't want to hear any whining about me having once called somebody exactly what they asked to be called.
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Why do you keep trying to turn this into an example of anti-religious bigotry? I’ve explained why the phrase has become fraught and have given examples. You don’t agree. I’m just not sure how I’m suddenly on the vanguard of those who want to silence people of conscience. If I’ve ridiculed this hyperventilation, it’s because it is ridiculous. I'm not attributing it to bigotry. An apparent double standard, perhaps. 1
CV75 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Exiled said: Why not just ask these groups how they want to be described and simply do so as the church wants to call itself a certain way? Mormon seems to be a good description, why not just call members of the church mormons? Why make such a big deal over an easy name and try and force people to use such a cumbersome name? No one is asking the Church how she wants to describe (name) herself. People can take President Nelson's request according to the light they have. For example, the Newsroom framed their understanding in terms of a style guide for reporters and media outlets. I'm going to refer to myself as a "Latter-day Saint" instead of "a Mormon" and then hopefully have to explain what that is. Some reporters, members or organizations might not think it's important to comply. That should not affect anyone's or any organization's relationship with the Church in that the Church will treat them the same. It is up to them whether they will treat the Church differently. Likewise, the Church isn't asking anyone how they want to be described. She sees everyone as a child of God and in a way invites everyone to accept that and see each other that way. A group that bestows an identity upon anyone they deem fitting of it, and purports to represent these individuals' best interests (whether they are a direct member or adherent or not) can only expect the same response the Church receives.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not attributing it to bigotry. An apparent double standard, perhaps. I have not attributed the use of the phrase to bigotry. Once again you are accusing me of things I haven’t said or done. Knock it off.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: You seem to believe the phrase is so straightforward and objective that it’s irrational to object to its use. So, why do you think people like me have grumbled about it? Did we just arbitrarily pick a phrase to dislike? Is it because we are biased against the religious? I mean, I and others have explained why we think it’s problematic, and obviously you find our reasoning to be without any merit. So, how about it? What’s the real reason? It’s not up to me to to try to assign reason where I see it as being deficient.
Exiled Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, CV75 said: No one is asking the Church how she wants to describe (name) herself. People can take President Nelson's request according to the light they have. For example, the Newsroom framed their understanding in terms of a style guide for reporters and media outlets. I'm going to refer to myself as a "Latter-day Saint" instead of "a Mormon" and then hopefully have to explain what that is. Some reporters, members or organizations might not think it's important to comply. That should not affect anyone's or any organization's relationship with the Church in that the Church will treat them the same. It is up to them whether they will treat the Church differently. Likewise, the Church isn't asking anyone how they want to be described. She sees everyone as a child of God and in a way invites everyone to accept that and see each other that way. A group that bestows an identity upon anyone they deem fitting of it, and purports to represent these individuals' best interests (whether they are a direct member or adherent or not) can only expect the same response the Church receives. The church is asking to call it a certain name and others are asking to be called certain names. Isn't it fair to treat others how the church wants to be treated? Or should we just be thankful that the church is dictating how groups should be called and follow along?
Exiled Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s not up to me to to try to assign reason where I see it as being deficient. So, are you just following what you believe to be the brethren's stance?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I have not attributed the use of the phrase to bigotry. Once again you are accusing me of things I haven’t said or done. Knock it off. He said, “Double standard, perhaps.” He didn’t say bigotry.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Just now, Exiled said: So, are you just following what you believe to be the brethren's stance? ????? Non sequitur. Did you intend it as an insult? If so, it was lost on me.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, Exiled said: The church is asking to call it a certain name and others are asking to be called certain names. Isn't it fair to treat others how the church wants to be treated? Or should we just be thankful that the church is dictating how groups should be called and follow along? You’re not making sense. The Church is not dictating how other groups should be called.
smac97 Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I have not attributed the use of the phrase to bigotry. I just acknowledged that.
kllindley Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Use by people of varying ideologies is pretty much the point of value-neutral terms. There's a measure of subjectivity in all this, which is why I keep pointing to GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges. None of these groups has an anti-gay ax to grind. All of these groups use "same-sex attraction" (as one of a few different descriptors). And yet only religious people are being dinged for using this term. Why? Thanks, -Smac They aren't using it as a substitute for LGBT, gay, or lesbian. I totally agree with using it as an accurate descriptor, especially when it is more inclusive than gay. But that's not how GLAAD or NYT use it. Has anyone asked you not use it at all? I would actually be a little bothered if I was referred to as "same-sex attracted." It just doesn't feel accurate or right. I say that as someone who would want people to accurately describe me as LGBT or as "experiencing same-sex attraction." I don't really like the verbs suffers, struggles, has, or deals with before the same-sex attraction. Experiences or feels are accurate. 3
changed Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Respect names... If China wants to call itself a "people's republic" then let's redefine what a republic is, and call them a republic. A rose by any other name... it does not matter what you call yourself, everything shows and is known for its true colors.
Exiled Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: ????? Non sequitur. Did you intend it as an insult? If so, it was lost on me. Well, you wouldn't say what your reason was to John and you seem to be trying to follow how you think the brethren would act in this situation .....
smac97 Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: They aren't using it as a substitute for LGBT, gay, or lesbian. Nor am I. 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: I totally agree with using it as an accurate descriptor, especially when it is more inclusive than gay. But that's not how GLAAD or NYT use it. Has anyone asked you not use it at all? I would actually be a little bothered if I was referred to as "same-sex attracted." It just doesn't feel accurate or right. I say that as someone who would want people to accurately describe me as LGBT or as "experiencing same-sex attraction." I don't really like the verbs suffers, struggles, has, or deals with before the same-sex attraction. Experiences or feels are accurate. Fair enough. 1
Exiled Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re not making sense. The Church is not dictating how other groups should be called. CV75 was making an allusion to Bednar when Bednar said there are no homosexual members of the church, just children of God, and not defined by sexual preference. That seems to be dictating, at least to the members, how to view the issue.
kllindley Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think the claim is bizarre that it is exclusively or almost exclusively Latter-day Saints who use the term. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Yes. I tried to track down who it was that coined the term, and I struck out. I feel reasonably confident it was not the Church. GLAAD isn't exactly in the habit of using terminology coined by religious groups. I will concede that the term/phrase "same-gender attraction" is almost certainly an LDS invention. It seems like the word sex (part of a phrase that was widely in use at the time) was too risque.
Calm Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Just an FYI, the next week is going to be moving Mom into assisted living (signed the papers today) and I may be erratic in posting including dropping out of threads simply because it takes too much energy to think about how to say things clearly...such as this one at this moment, I just can't gather the interest to respond. My apologies if this means someone has wasted time. Ask me to do some research on old threads or something for you sometime in the future (not the next two weeks) so I can make it up to those who put in the effort.
jkwilliams Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Just now, Calm said: Just an FYI, the next week is going to be moving Mom into assisted living (signed the papers today) and I may be erratic in posting including dropping out of threads simply because it takes too much energy to think about how to say things clearly...such as this one at this moment, I just can't gather the interest to respond. My apologies if this means someone has wasted time. Ask me to do some research on old threads or something for you sometime in the future (not the next two weeks) so I can make it up to those who put in the effort. That’s a tough transition. Hope it goes well.
jkwilliams Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: I will concede that the term/phrase "same-gender attraction" is almost certainly an LDS invention. It seems like the word sex (part of a phrase that was widely in use at the time) was too risque. I think you may be right. I don’t see any non-LDS references to it. I had no idea.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, kllindley said: I will concede that the term/phrase "same-gender attraction" is almost certainly an LDS invention. It seems like the word sex (part of a phrase that was widely in use at the time) was too risque. “Same-gender attraction” is a different phrase than “same-sex attraction,” though. Is there any material difference in meaning between the two? Edited August 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Exiled said: CV75 was making an allusion to Bednar when Bednar said there are no homosexual members of the church, just children of God, and not defined by sexual preference. That seems to be dictating, at least to the members, how to view the issue. I think it’s within the purview of an apostle to teach the members of the Church, whose faithfulness to Christ and His Church and kingdom ought not be supplanted by loyalty to this or that political ideology or interest group. Of course, they are free to go their own way, but they may not be able to claim membership in good standing if they do. Edited August 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
Recommended Posts