An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Same-gender attraction” is a different phrase than “same-sex attraction,” though. Is there any material difference in meaning between the two?

Yes, it is a different phrase. I'm not conceeding same-sex attraction. That is neither LDS nor exclusively Christian/Religious. 

I don't think there is any material difference. That's why I find it rather humorous. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 political ideology or interest group

The idea that being gay is a political ideology or interest group is a large part of the problem here. Have you talked to any gay Latter-day Saints? Can I recommend that you listen to Tom Christofferson’s interview with Doug Fabrizio? 

Edited August 22, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The idea that being gay is a political ideology or interest group is a large part of the problem here. Have you talked to any gay Latter-day Saintss? Can I recommend that you listen to Tom Christofferson’s interview with Doug Fabrizio? 

I love and respect Tom. But he does not speak for all gay/LGBT/SSA members.  Gay as an identity is different from gay as a sexual orientation.  

[Tacenda]

My husband rode home from a job out of town with a guy he worked with. And this guy, I know him, told  my husband that he told his grandson he shouldn't go to a concert by a gay guy. This grandson is soon going to leave on his mission. What kind of message is this guy's grandson getting? So unChristlike to me. Terrible. Little did this guy know, that my husband and I went to the Love Loud concert recently.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Sure, the faithful need to be loyal by definition and leaders must lead by definition too. However, back to the main point I wanted to make, John simply doesn't want to be labeled against his wishes like the church does with the mormon label. So, why not accomodate people like John? He is willing to accomodate the church name change. Why not accomodate him?

[USU78]

It feels good to be able to make people do things we want them to do. Especially when it's particularly irksome to them. Makes one feel important. And powerful.

But we're nothing more than cowards and bullies when we do it.

Edited August 22, 2018 by USU78

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It feels good to be able to make people do things we want them to do. Especially when it's particularly irksome to them. Makes one feel important. And powerful.

But we're nothing more than cowards and bullies when we do it.

Who is making someone do anything?

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It feels good to be able to make people do things we want them to do. Especially when it's particularly irksome to them. Makes one feel important. And powerful.

But we're nothing more than cowards and bullies when we do it.

Accomodating is tough at times. However, it is worth it because maybe you will want accomodation some time😁

[Exiled]

The church will play victim at times.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When did “condition” become an epithet? You can refer to my heterosexuality as a condition if you like. I won’t mind. Or the state of my health. 

Scott struggles with the Mormon.  I hope with enough faith and prayer, he will be able overcome it if not in this life, the next.,  With God, all things are possible. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by california boy

[Calm]

6 hours 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. 

Doesn't look like it from the advanced book search on google I just did of the phrase:

https://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q="Same-gender+attraction"&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1980,cd_max:Jan+31_2+1999&num=100

[CV75]

13 hours 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?

All anyone can do is ask. It would be unfair to not allow that.

The Golden rule isn't about "fairness" but about sacrifice and consecration. Note that it is expressed in one direction only (it's not "Do unto others as they have done unto you.").

I am thankful that the Church keeps "identity" terminology consistent with the doctrine that we are children of God. I think "Jesus Christ" and  "Latter-day Saint" are more reflective of that identity than "Mormon" is. "I have SSA" and "I have covenants and grace" can be said by the same Latter-day Saint. After doing enough thinking about oneself to determine and assert his first distinguishing characteristic (which is what this conversation is now about), no matter what he concludes that to be, I don't think he will fight against being considered (or called) a child of God, whether by himself, by others, or both.

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Lots of evil has been perpetrated in the history of this world where "no offense was intended." 

Oh, please.  The only evil I can think of where "no offense was intended" was when the offender didn't mean to be offensive, and believed what he did or said was innocent, but the offended took it entirely wrongly.  And the offended was, in that case the source of evil, not the offender.  You take your premise to the logical conclusion, then it justifies every act of evil that can be traced to someone who intended no offense and said something out of ignorance.  Incitement to riot is no excuse for riot.

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ignorance is not an excuse.   

It bloody well is.  

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We're getting educated about these differences and the experiences of flesh and blood human beings.    These real people are mistreated regularly, often on a daily basis because of prejudice and ignorance.  I thought Christianity was supposed to be about not judging people and standing up for the little guy. 

In my day to day life -- the life I live outside this forum and outside the internet -- virtually no-one is getting mistreated.  I go about my days amongst people of many colors, creeds and conditions, and my normal politeness and consideration seems to be more than adequate in keeping the peace.  But it appears that people are being judged every day on the internet -- and a lot of the judgement is being done by people who have made it their business to be offended.  

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Asking people to change their vocabulary to show respect shouldn't be a hard thing to do.  

Yeah, I can see that if it is offensive to refer to an German person as a "kraut" then you definitely shouldn't do it.

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Doesn't look like it from the advanced book search on google I just did of the phrase:

https://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q="Same-gender+attraction"&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1980,cd_max:Jan+31_2+1999&num=100

I appreciate the correction. It does appear that the term was widely in use in a variety of professional and religious contexts well before the LDS Church adopted it. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Just a quick dose of perspective.  Here we are on page 15 on a CoJCoLDS discussion forum, happily arguing away about who should use what term to describe what.  Tossing around terms like "facile" and "insulting" and "unreasonable", and a few more.

You want to know where else I've seen the issue discussed?  In social circles peopled mainly by lgbtq/non-binary/gender fluidity folks.  Those can get very vicious.  Tossing around terms like "die in a hole" and "drink bleach" and "go kill yourself", plus no end of foul language. 

No seriously.  You think people here are being rude or disrespectful when trying to figure out what word to use for these various folks?  Go watch a fight when these various folks start arguing among themselves about the same thing.  Not only do they tell you you're using the wrong word, they often deny you the word you're trying to claim for yourself.  It often gets real nasty, real fast.

Edited August 22, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

Sure, the faithful need to be loyal by definition and leaders must lead by definition too. However, back to the main point I wanted to make, John simply doesn't want to be labeled against his wishes like the church does with the mormon label. So, why not accomodate people like John? He is willing to accomodate the church name change. Why not accomodate him?

It seems to be taken more as a moral or political capitulation than a request for accommodation. It's not a big deal.

Edited August 22, 2018 by jkwilliams

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just a quick dose of perspective.  Here we are on page 15 on a CoJCoLDS discussion forum, happily arguing away about who should use what term to describe what.  Tossing around terms like "facile" and "insulting" and "unreasonable", and a few more.

You want to know where else I've seen the issue discussed?  In social circles peopled mainly by lgbtq/non-binary/gender fluidity folks.  Those can get very vicious.  Tossing around terms like "die in a hole" and "drink bleach" and "go kill yourself", plus no end of foul language. 

No seriously.  You think people here are being rude or disrespectful when trying to figure out what word to use for these various folks?  Go watch a fight when these various folks start arguing among themselves about the same thing.  Not only do they tell you you're using the wrong word, they often deny you the word you're trying to claim for yourself.  It often gets real nasty, real fast.

That was an unfortunate post. You should get new friends. 

Or are you now trying to make the case all the gays talk like this?

[smac97]

13 hours ago, kllindley said:

I love and respect Tom. But he does not speak for all gay/LGBT/SSA members.  Gay as an identity is different from gay as a sexual orientation.  

I would like to better understand the "gay as an identity" concept.

For me, being "straight" or "heterosexual" is not an "identity."  It is part of who I am, yes.  But it's an attribute of the whole, not an identity of the whole.

I "identify" myself by relation (son of God, husband, father, son, brother, friend), by faith (Latter-day Saint), by nationality (American), and by gender (male).

There are other aspects of myself which are important to me, but not as an "identity."  These include sexual orientation (heterosexual), political ideology (conservative/libertarian), residence (Utahn), profession (attorney), and so on.

And then there are aspects of myself which are not as important to me.  These include racial category (caucasian), physical attributes (height, weight, hair and eye color, right-handed, etc.), sports fan (lukewarm for BYU and the Jazz), artistic preferences and tastes (music, literature, movies, etc.), and so on.

I understand that some people have their "identity" tied up in their politics, or their job, or their creative efforts.  And some identify themselves predominantly by their race. 

And, it seems, some identify themselves predominantly by their sexual orientation.  I do not seek to criticize or find fault with this.  I want to understand it better.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 22, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just a quick dose of perspective.  Here we are on page 15 on a CoJCoLDS discussion forum, happily arguing away about who should use what term to describe what.  Tossing around terms like "facile" and "insulting" and "unreasonable", and a few more.

You want to know where else I've seen the issue discussed?  In social circles peopled mainly by lgbtq/non-binary/gender fluidity folks.  Those can get very vicious.  Tossing around terms like "die in a hole" and "drink bleach" and "go kill yourself", plus no end of foul language. 

No seriously.  You think people here are being rude or disrespectful when trying to figure out what word to use for these various folks?  Go watch a fight when these various folks start arguing among themselves about the same thing.  Not only do they tell you you're using the wrong word, they often deny you the word you're trying to claim for yourself.  It often gets real nasty, real fast.

I've never been involved in those social circles, so I wouldn't know. That other people can be cruel and intolerant is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion here. 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I appreciate the correction. It does appear that the term was widely in use in a variety of professional and religious contexts well before the LDS Church adopted it. 

The professional/clinical usage of "same-gender attraction" appears to go back to at least 1994.

The professional/clinical usage of "same-sex attraction" appears to go back to at least 1984, and possibly even earlier than that ("Bell and Weinberg (1978), and Masters and Johnson (1979) have attempted to explain how males and females express same-sex attraction...").

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I appreciate the correction. It does appear that the term was widely in use in a variety of professional and religious contexts well before the LDS Church adopted it. 

Same here.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, please.  The only evil I can think of where "no offense was intended" was when the offender didn't mean to be offensive, and believed what he did or said was innocent, but the offended took it entirely wrongly.  And the offended was, in that case the source of evil, not the offender.  You take your premise to the logical conclusion, then it justifies every act of evil that can be traced to someone who intended no offense and said something out of ignorance.  Incitement to riot is no excuse for riot.

It bloody well is.  

In my day to day life -- the life I live outside this forum and outside the internet -- virtually no-one is getting mistreated.  I go about my days amongst people of many colors, creeds and conditions, and my normal politeness and consideration seems to be more than adequate in keeping the peace.  But it appears that people are being judged every day on the internet -- and a lot of the judgement is being done by people who have made it their business to be offended.  

Yeah, I can see that if it is offensive to refer to an German person as a "kraut" then you definitely shouldn't do it.

I honestly don't have much I feel like I can positively respond to.  Your comments sound quite callous to my ears, and unfortunately oblivious to the pain that is experienced on a frequent basis by those who are discriminated against in our society.  Their stories are real, and their pain is real, and if you don't see it, perhaps that is because you have a blind spot that once removed can open up a whole new reality to your view.  I can't remove that blind spot for you, that's work you'll have to do yourself.  I hope you won't take my comments as intending insult as I'm not trying to place blame or say that this blind spot is a fault of your doing.  Best of luck.  

 

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I "identify" myself by relation (son of God, husband, father, son, brother, friend), by faith (Latter-day Saint), by nationality (American), and by gender (male).

Would you find it odd if someone asked you to justify why you identify yourself in these ways? 

[USU78]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Who is making someone do anything?

Have you somehow missed the Canadian sanctions against those who refuse or fail to use recently made-up pronouns?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I "identify" myself by relation (son of God, husband, father, son, brother, friend), by faith (Latter-day Saint), by nationality (American), and by gender (male).

Would you find it odd if someone asked you to justify why you identify yourself in these ways? 

Not at all.  And I would be happy to explain (I'm not asking anyone to "justify" anything - just explain).  My faith and my family are the most important things in my life.  Most of my time and means and efforts go toward providing for my wife and children, helping them, etc.  Moreover, my identity as husband and father is tightly interwoven with my identity as a son of God, and my membership in the Church.  So these identities fold in on each other and strengthen each other.

My status as an American is simply happenstance, but I am grateful for it.  I love my country.  I am proud of it.  I have served in its military.  I vote in its elections.  I pay taxes.  I (try to) abide by its laws.

My gender has an effect on many aspects of my life.  My status as a husband and father is dependent on it.  My outlook on life appears to be affected by it.  

Thanks,

-Smac