Hate the sin, love the sinner--why the disdain for the saying?

[Stormin' Mormon]

A couple more follow-up questions.  None of these are intended to lead posters into any sort of lawyerly trap or gotcha moment.  Just trying to listen and learn.

1.  What if we removed the emotionally-charged words "hate," "sin," and "sinner?"  Instead, the phrasing would be "disapprove of the thing, love the person doing the thing."  Does that make it any less offensive or condescending?

2. Can bad behavior be generalized without being judgemental?  By this I mean, can we say "using a cell phone in a dark movie theater is bad.  I disapprove of such behavior."  Attaching no accusation to a specific person or incident, just saying: this behavior is bad and should be avoided.  If not, what's the best way to teach moral standards and behaviors?

[Saint Bonaventure]

With regard to St. Augustine, his comment to "with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin," was offered as part of the official church discipline of some nuns who had vows and commitments beyond those of a lay person. (See St. Augustine’s Letter 211).

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I just looked up this expression on the Church website and found it’s been used many times by many General Authorities throughout the years. Why is there any controversy over such perfectly sound and compassionate spiritual counsel?

It is not controversy. In some circumstances it is helpful. It is just not scriptural. It can and often does come from a place of charity but often it is misused. Then again, so are a lot of scriptures.

And just in case there is someone out there not tired of my C.S. Lewis quoting:

Quote

“I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. ...I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life -- namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.”

To someone who has this realization of how to do it it is good counsel. The sentiment has also been used as justification for some behavior that does not come from a place of charity. This is usually from someone justifying that they love the sinner so anything I say or do to this person because I hate the sin is justified.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think that the difference is that some people are okay with being called a sinner in certain contexts. I don’t know many people who nod along when someone says they are a bigot or that all people are bigots.

Except whenever I have seen the the phrase is used, it is outside those certain contexts. It is used to describe people “living in sin” and those in same sex relationships. 

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not controversy. In some circumstances it is helpful. It is just not scriptural. It can and often does come from a place of charity but often it is misused. Then again, so are a lot of scriptures.

D&C 121:43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy

If we assume reproval is due to sin or error then this would qualify wouldn't it?

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“We would not have much motivation to righteousness if all speakers and writers postponed discussing and warning until they themselves were perfected.” — Spencer W. Kimball

Spencer W. Kimball also said that he'd wished he had been much softer in his tone in his book "the miracle of forgiveness".  It taught truth but it did not have the effect he wanted and he recognized that it would have been more successful in doing what he hoped it would do, if he had expressed himself differently.

My thoughts as a pragmatist are, is "Love the sinner, hate the sin" doing what we want it to do?  Is it achieving our goal or is it getting in our the way and making it harder for people to feel Christ's love and come to Him?

I'm with Pres. Kimball, if something isn't working, or didn't work, then let's do something different.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

A couple more follow-up questions.  None of these are intended to lead posters into any sort of lawyerly trap or gotcha moment.  Just trying to listen and learn.

1.  What if we removed the emotionally-charged words "hate," "sin," and "sinner?"  Instead, the phrasing would be "disapprove of the thing, love the person doing the thing."  Does that make it any less offensive or condescending?

2. Can bad behavior be generalized without being judgemental?  By this I mean, can we say "using a cell phone in a dark movie theater is bad.  I disapprove of such behavior."  Attaching no accusation to a specific person or incident, just saying: this behavior is bad and should be avoided.  If not, what's the best way to teach moral standards and behaviors?

1. I think our conversation should be such that our love is evident, and even taken for granted. Contentions would thus be prevented and avoided.

2. Teaching moral standards and behaviors is different than either defending or attacking them. I think they should be taught in a way that their merits stand for themselves. When contention is prevented and avoided (see #1), people can comfortably drill down on the merits and learn from each other.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 121:43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy

If we assume reproval is due to sin or error then this would qualify wouldn't it?

 

What does the scripture mean by sharpness?  I have heard it taught that it does not mean with force or anger or bluntness anything similar that, but I don't remember what they said it actually does mean.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except whenever I have seen the the phrase is used, it is outside those certain contexts. It is used to describe people “living in sin” and those in same sex relationships. 

The overemphasis of sexual sin is probably one of our greatest weaknesses.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I just looked up this expression on the Church website and found it’s been used many times by many General Authorities throughout the years. Why is there any controversy over such perfectly sound and compassionate spiritual counsel?

Do you think the Church has a reputation for loving LGBT people?  Or do you think most people outside the Church feel the Church kinda has it in for anyone who is LGBT.   Part of that reputation comes from the horrible language the Church  has chosen to use for quite some time.  People aren't gay, they have SSA, which sounds more like a disease.  That is not how a gay person identifies themselves at least outside of the Church.  It feels like the Church is imposing its own language and trying to control how gay people refer to themselves.  it doesn't come as any surprise that the Church website is full of General Authorities using that phrase.  It is not like they have been particularly sensitive to how they address the LGBT community.  I honestly don't know any gay person who feels loved by the LDS Church.  Perhaps there are some out there, but they are few and far between.  Yet the members seem to think that the Church is being inclusive and supportive of its gay members.  Members seem to be able to overlook all the stuff like Prop 8, calling married gay couples apostates, refusing to baptize their underage children, and current discrimination that BYU exhibits.  They think that by the General Authorities saying that we love everyone even if you are gay, makes that all somehow disappear.

Hate the sin, love the sinner is also a disparaging attitude toward the LGBT community. Does a person who uses that phrase use it on ALL of their friends?  Because couldn't you use that phrase with every single person you know?  When you see your friends, do you start the conversation by telling them that you hate their sins, but love them?  Yet it seems mostly reserved to disparage the LGBT community.  As if their sins are the ones we should be having hatred for.  When it is followed up by "Love the sinner" I feel nothing by hypocrisy.  You don't love someone if you see their sins before you actually know them as a person.  In fact, I have never heard someone use that phrase when they actually know me.  

I hear a lot of members complain that someone who is gay should not make that their identity.  Yet, they have no problem making their sins be what defines them in their own eyes.  

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

apply the "hate the sin/love the sinner" framework to myself and my actions

Quote

I hear a lot of members complain that someone who is gay should not make that their identity.  Yet, they have no problem making their sins be what defines them in their own eyes.  

I think it is similar to the caution we were given by my daughter’s doctors to not say “she is a diabetic” as opposed to “she has diabetes”…that makes the diabetes her defining characteristic….as if that is all that matters about her.

This narrowing of a person to their label can beneficial in some ways, it is useful in activism to promote the shared characteristic because that creates a sense of unity and focus.  And can be quite useful if only used as a starting point (“I’m a Mormon” campaign), but if that is as far as it goes, it diminishes the individuals being labeled (in an older article I read recently, someone with a minority heritage in the Church said they were called on if there was a need to cook, sing, or dance, but not much else ***).  If that defining characteristic is also labeled as something evil by others, it is easy to see those who wear the label by choice or not will then see it as attacking that unity and focus, both of any community that has taken on the label and the individual.

And if there is no opportunity to see how the person judging the sin or the community who sees it as good interacts with those who have chosen the label as an identity except in a debating environment, it is too easy to assume that the choice to sin in their view is what they care most about any person making that choice.

It boils down for me to what bluebell says….does using the saying achieve what you want it to achieve?  If what is most important to someone is letting everyone know they disapprove of a behaviour, it probably works pretty well.  If seeking to help support others to change, I don’t think so.  At the very least, it has been used often enough that many people see it as cliched and therefore its use identifies someone as caring superficially about others, iow not caring even enough to put the work into saying something without the baggage.  Others will see the use of “hate the sin, love the sinner” as putting one’s personal need to judge ahead of the other’s need to grow (of which recognition of one’s sins is just a small part of the process) even when they might agree a behaviour is a sin.
 

***https://universe.byu.edu/2018/10/17/church-embracing-diversity-but-members-say-theres-room-for-progress-1/
 

Quote

“When the stake wants to do something, the Latinos can sing, dance or cook,” García said. He said many members’ capabilities are beyond these simple tasks. They are lawyers and doctors, former bishops or mission presidents; they have more to offer. García said for many this becomes “a downer.”

“After a while, you want to be known for more than you can sing, dance and cook,” García said.

While García said he believes most white members don’t mean to be hurtful, minority members are still harmed by these cultural and racial misunderstandings.

“You realize it traps you into being whatever the perception is,” García said, adding that many members are left to deal with the struggle leaders have to overcome preexisting prejudices

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

What does the scripture mean by sharpness?  I have heard it taught that it does not mean with force or anger or bluntness anything similar that, but I don't remember what they said it actually does mean.

Quickly, both in the sense of ‘in the moment’ and ‘get it over with’.

For example if you felt the need to correct lgbt behaviors on (picking something at random) a message board you would say your piece quickly and succinctly and afterwards show love towards anyone who might be hurt by it to show that you are not their enemy. I suppose the bad way would be to continuously and endlessly go on about it rehashing the same talking points endlessly, gnawing on the general badness of the whole thing again and again, and taking any excuse available to pontificate upon its badness.

Just as a random example of course.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The overemphasis of sexual sin is probably one of our greatest weaknesses.

Our weakness or God's?

I mean scripture is pretty clear as to its severity.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Spencer W. Kimball also said that he'd wished he had been much softer in his tone in his book "the miracle of forgiveness".  It taught truth but it did not have the effect he wanted and he recognized that it would have been more successful in doing what he hoped it would do, if he had expressed himself differently.

My thoughts as a pragmatist are, is "Love the sinner, hate the sin" doing what we want it to do?  Is it achieving our goal or is it getting in our the way and making it harder for people to feel Christ's love and come to Him?

I'm with Pres. Kimball, if something isn't working, or didn't work, then let's do something different.

The comment I quoted was in the introduction or preface to the book, as I recall. To my knowledge, he never disavowed that particular comment. It still rings true for its pithy wisdom these many years after his death. Only one person who ever lived on the earth and preached a sermon was sinless. We still need exhortations to righteousness, even though there are no perfect individuals who ever lived in mortality except one. Otherwise, there would be no speakers for general conference.
 

And to my recollection, President Kimball was still “discussing and warning,” right up to the time when he was incapacitated and silenced by frail health. Consider, for example, this speech given at BYU as late as 1977, just two or three years before the onset of his increasingly rapid health decline:

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

What does the scripture mean by sharpness?  I have heard it taught that it does not mean with force or anger or bluntness anything similar that, but I don't remember what they said it actually does mean.

I don’t know to whom you’re alluding, but I have long maintained that “sharpness” in this context means clarity. When we make an image clearer with a camera or projector lens by reducing or eliminating blur, it is said that we “sharpen” it. 
 

Reproving with sharpness is giving reproof with clarity, communicating it in a way that cannot reasonably be misunderstood. I don’t think it necessarily means with harshness, although I suppose in some instances it could. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike it because it is unscriptural yet it is recited as it were a scriptural truth.

St. Augustine espoused a similar sentiment. Gandhi an even closer one.

I don’t remember hearing anyone say or imply it is scriptural. 
 

Not every true thing is in the scriptures. It’s my understanding we don’t embrace the sola scriptura dogma, even if it were broadened to include the other Standard Works in addition to the Bible. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Our weakness or God's?

I mean scripture is pretty clear as to its severity.

That it is a sin is clear. Only sin ranking I know of is Alma berating Corinaton and saying whatever he did was next to murder. It was probably a sexual sin but was it adultery? Fornication? Or was Hugh Nibley right and it was some kind of fertility cult orgy? Why does Alma call it “these things” instead of “this thing”. It was multiple things?

There are some ratings but scripture suggests adultery is worse than fornication. I would argue that the sin being more predatory has possibly an even greater impact on its severity.

A gossip can do more damage than a fornicator and be far more malicious. So can a con artist defrauding people. Who would you judge more harshly? A grown man under temple covenants using his church connections and ‘prestige’ in other areas to con people out of money leaving them destitute or a 16 year old who gave into lust with a consenting partner? I suspect the sin of Corianton was at least adultery if not more serious due to other factors. Joseph Smith taught about gradations in sexual sin and some being more severe. I mean, yeah, they are serious but not in a class of their own beyond all others. The Doctrine & Covenants put it on lists with things like lying.

Too often when we think of purity we think of sexual sin and the Word of Wisdom and stop there.

I even get why there is some emphasis on sexual sin. It tends to be messy. It is what screws up a fair number of lives and priesthood leaders have to deal with a lot of the fallout. The availability of pornography amplifies the desire. The portrayal of non chastity is everywhere. Then again there are a lot of sins being lauded in our culture.

I should add that I don’t think the church has gone as far overboard on this as many Christian churches have. Youth get direct lessons on it two to three times a year. Adults don’t get a lot of lessons directly on chastity. We don’t harp on it endlessly for the most part. I do think we might amp up the severity a bit too much compared to other sins. When you have kids hating themselves because they think masturbation (which I have not seen mentioned in scripture outside of Onan and that was a very weird case) is next to murder you are getting into weird territory.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t remember hearing anyone say or imply it is scriptural. 
 

Not every true thing is in the scriptures. It’s my understanding we don’t embrace the sola scriptura dogma, even if it were broadened to include the other Standard Works in addition to the Bible. 

I am not convinced it is a good way to look at sin and sinner. I think we picked it up from Protestants. That alone makes it suspect to me. That the most likely origin for the sentiment comes from a weirdo Hindu (seriously read up on Gandhi sometime if you think I am being harsh) makes me feel the same way with the way he treated the disadvantaged.

When I hear someone talk about loving the sinner and hating the sin I suspect that whatever comes out of their mouth next (nine times out of ten) is going to alienate the sinners. 

Yes, there are times to speak about sin and its consequences but the “I love the sinners” seems to come in like a copout or disclaimer that gives the speaker license to not have to actually express that love.

Or, put another way it is rare for someone to talk about loving the sinner and hating the sin and then go on to talk about the love part. It is usually the hate part. Hate is not always bad. Hatred of sin is healthy when used the right way. I remember in one book where the protagonist ran into a possessed person and interacted with a devil and his realization was that something like this is what hate was made for. He felt it was like a boy with an axe finding his first tree. Opportunities to be interacting with devils and something you can hate without guilt are rare and (in my experience) are not pleasant. The rest of the time we need to blunt the axe so we don’t profess to love the sinner but convince the sinner we hate them.

I read an article about search engine terms. This was years back and may no longer be true but the most common God question was “Who created God?” Some members of our church would admittedly have fun giving an unorthodox answer by most Christian standards. The second most common was “Why does God allow suffering?” That is unsurprisingly common and theodicy is healthy. The third though was “Why does God hate me?”

I admit that taking the world as it stands the prima facile case for a loving God is pretty weak. I imagine that is why many religions didn’t have one or if they did it often wasn’t the supreme deity. Most of us could easily describe a few changes that would make our life happier. Sometimes the requested changes would probably also make us holier. So why does God not act? Or why did God not act before? I know the reasons I have been given and I even believe them most of the tie but really is the quantity of suffering really necessary? It seems excessive.

And I have wandered far from the point and should probably go to bed. If there is anything really stupid in what I said I plead tiredness.

[Meadowchik]

Growing up a Latter-day Saint in the Bible Belt, I was often treated similarly. It lacked respect and reverence for sincerely-held beliefs important to me.

 

[Olmec Donald]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The third [most common internet search question about God] was “Why does God hate me?”

This seems to me to indicate a failing on the part of religion.  Imo religion is supposed to lighten people's burdens, not add to them.  Religion is supposed to remove despair, not induce it.  The "gospel" is supposed to be good news, not awful news.  Christ said that his yoke is easy and his burden is light, but all too often religions impose a yoke that is not easy, and a burden that is not light.  

Perfect love casts out fear.  So if a religious teaching does not cast out fear, then it is not perfect love.  

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I admit that taking the world as it stands the prima facile case for a loving God is pretty weak.

I agree.  The preponderance of the readily apparent evidence supports various dismal conclusions.  You have to be deliberately illogical (and in this case in a disgustingly optimistic direction) to believe something so contrary to the evidence.  Jesus said "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed", but doing so doesn't come naturally to most of us.  

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Most of us could easily describe a few changes that would make our life happier. Sometimes the requested changes would probably also make us holier. So why does God not act? Or why did God not act before? I know the reasons I have been given and I even believe them most of the time but really is the quantity of suffering really necessary? It seems excessive.

I have stupidly optimistic opinions but no real answers. 

One such stupidly optimistic opinion is that Jesus was serious when he said that the least among us (which I take to mean those having especially difficult life circumstances) are actually the great ones, presumably having signed up for graduate-level courses while the rest of us are taking the easy classes.  I also believe that the great ones do this as a gift to the rest of us, which gift will be the life experiences they will "download" to us and the wisdom and understanding that come with it, but that part usually doesn't happen in this life.  And at the risk of sounding even stupider, I believe that strongly enough to be grateful in advance.  

Edited January 24, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Instead, the phrasing would be "disapprove of the thing, love the person doing the thing."  Does that make it any less offensive or condescending?

It depends on how what you disapprove of and how close that is tied to their identity.
 

If someone says I love you but I disapprove of the color you chose for your bathroom, then fine. 
 

But if someone tells me they love me but they disapprove of my spouse (calling my relationship counterfeit), disapprove of my family etc, then hell no. I don’t want or need your “love” and certainly don’t need you in my life. If I had a parent like that we wouldn’t be speaking. 

[Amulek]

I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but did you all really grow up hearing the expression as "hate the sin, love the sinner" and not "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

While technically saying the same thing, I've always felt like there was sort of an unstated emphasis on whatever is being stated first (i.e., hate or love). YMMV.

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The comment I quoted was in the introduction or preface to the book, as I recall. To my knowledge, he never disavowed that particular comment. It still rings true for its pithy wisdom these many years after his death. Only one person who ever lived on the earth and preached a sermon was sinless. We still need exhortations to righteousness, even though there are no perfect individuals who ever lived in mortality except one. Otherwise, there would be no speakers for general conference.
 

And to my recollection, President Kimball was still “discussing and warning,” right up to the time when he was incapacitated and silenced by frail health. Consider, for example, this speech given at BYU as late as 1977, just two or three years before the onset of his increasingly rapid health decline:

 

You seem to be implying that the only way to discuss and warn is through "love the sinner, hate the sin", but my point is that there are ways to discuss things and talk about sin without using that specific formula or saying.

Also, this idea that if the prophet of God does it over the pulpit then that means we should be doing it to everyone we talk to doesn't make sense to me.  The prophet has a mandate to the world, just as he has authority to declare and warn the world.  We don't have the same mandate or authority.  

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but did you all really grow up hearing the expression as "hate the sin, love the sinner" and not "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

While technically saying the same thing, I've always felt like there was sort of an unstated emphasis on whatever is being stated first (i.e., hate or love). YMMV.

Variations on the theme:  "Love the bigot, hate the bigotry"; "love the hypocrite, hate the hypocrisy"; "love the racist, hate the racism".  If any of these were applied to me, I don't think the order of the phrasing would change how it comes across.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Navidad]

I hesitate to opine on this, but I also hesitate not to do so. I would like to offer another perspective on this issue.

What you all are describing in your conversation about loving and hating is a form of soft bigotry or a subtle bigotry that hurts and cuts the recipient of such "love" and such "hate." 

It becomes real to me when my LDS friends crucify my own faith on the cross of their own onliness, certainty, doctrine, and exclusivity. Some of you counter the last word (exclusivity) by assuring me you are not exclusive, or no more exclusive than any other Christian, or with "of course we are exclusive - we are the only true church! - after all God told us that" Have you ever thought about a faith that teaches that Christ teaches (taught) that all other faiths are an "abomination?" Abomination! Abomination! Wow! There are many ways to say this that I have heard:

"When you ask questions in Elder's Quorum the spirit leaves the room!"

"I liked your prayer, but I wish they wouldn't let non-members pray!"

"I know the church let's you take the sacrament, but when you do so you are simply pretending!"

"We don't believe in hell, but unless you accept our ordinances and thus our brand of faith - you will spend eternity in a world absent the Father and the Son! Oh don't worry, it will be more wonderful than you could possibly imagine!"

"Whenever a non-LDS priest presides over an ordinance, he commits blasphemy!" Since someone brought up ex-President Kimball

"Oh, you know how evangelicals are, they do or say this or that" - said by those who refuse to learn how to differentiate between non-LDS Christians, probably because all of them are an "abomination - ministers of Lucifer!"

"Our missionaries come to 'teach' you because they love you!" Sound familiar?

"Don't blame me, I am just telling you what Christ Himself told Joseph Smith in the First Vision!" In other words, this is our doctrine . . . what else can I say or believe?"

Then of course while saying all these things, my LDS friends also bitterly complain how unkind, mean, and bigoted are those in the non-LDS community who state that LDS Christians are not really Christians. They (those who complain are probably justified, but may be missing the beam in their own eye because their beam is part of their doctrine!

Hate the sin and love the sinner! Or, love the sinner and hate the sin! There are many ways to say this.

They all hurt!

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Navidad