Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is it possible to love the sinner but hate the sin?


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think what complicates this is when we get World vs Us teachings, be it from conferences or by trusted members at a pulpit. Threat-based lessons have a lot of ability to put people in a defensive (possibly combative) mindset.

Even our fairly benign 'Be in the world not of the world ' mantra comes with implications that the 'world' is full of things that are better off vanquished.  And because very general teaching is what it is, we're left to our own devices to decide what ought to be vanquished. And so we do.

Ya,  I think the leaders need to be careful to define "the world" as a philosophy/teachings/way of life of the adversary and not actual human beings that we are vanquishing.  It is important to distinguish "the world" from the people in it, because we are all a mixed bag of the worldly natural man and saintly child of God, and we wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.   This is why I think it is important also to distinguish between approval/disapproval of behavior vs loving acceptance of the individual in a Christ-like 'woman caught in adulatory' kind of way.  Christ exemplified loving the sinner and hating the sin.

Lets face it, certain things of the world need to be vanquished.  In that way we are vanquishing evil philosophies/teachings and not people.  With people we should always be accepting and inviting. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think what complicates this is when we get World vs Us teachings, be it from conferences or by trusted members at a pulpit. Threat-based lessons have a lot of ability to put people in a defensive (possibly combative) mindset.

Even our fairly benign 'Be in the world not of the world ' mantra comes with implications that the 'world' is full of things that are better off vanquished.  And because very general teaching is what it is, we're left to our own devices to decide what ought to be vanquished. And so we do.

I agree. Our own personalities and personal biases can really impact how we interpret and implement general church teachings.  It can even cause us to behave in ways that would be outright condemned by the very apostles and prophets of the church we claim we are following.  We see this still with racism.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Lets face it, certain things of the world need to be vanquished.  In that way we are vanquishing evil philosophies/teachings and not people.

Vanquishing harmful teachings without targeting people is hard. Most folks seem to prefer the easy+opposite option, laws loaded with artificial consequences.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I hope you're right. In my experience, some families react better than others. Of course, that's just my anecdotal experience.

Also my anecdotal evidence, but I also don’t see this as much as a theme. It can still happen. I’ve personally only been witness to one story even remotely entailing cutting off a gay relative. And it was with a sibling cutting off another sibling in terms of communication (and of an older gen…probably 50’s would be my guess). I didn’t get to have much of the story as the relationship ended being fairly short-lived. 

most the time, the stories are in the middle. In the sense that they love and continue to maintain a relationship with their gay child/sibling/relative while going through a few bumps and miscommunications along the way. 
 

personally it makes sense why I couldn’t picture the quote mentioned from oaks 16 years ago. When I realized when and where it came from, it was hard for me to picture this as “apostolic counsel” which to me had at least more of an air of more authoritative statements than an archived interview from a time many of us were likely in need of growing on this topic. Heaven knows I was. And we have several statements made in many other venues that focuses on inclusion and loving behaviors even if we disagree as how to lead out on this. We also have several more public resources from unofficial sources ranging from books, articles, a website, and podcasts talking about this as well. why would I or most members think about this rando quote from relatively ages ago (for this topic) that has evolved in both rhetoric and understanding over the last several years? Most will follow what’s said now moreso that of 20 years ago. Minus that handful of rigid members who struggle with shifts in general and are most likely to gravitate to any quote from any timeline that allows them to avoid needing to change. 
 

Of course this could have to do with how one views continuing revelation and how we’re to grow/interact with the words of church leaders in general. 
 

gotta run

with luv, 

BD

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Also my anecdotal evidence, but I also don’t see this as much as a theme. It can still happen. I’ve personally only been witness to one story even remotely entailing cutting off a gay relative. And it was with a sibling cutting off another sibling in terms of communication (and of an older gen…probably 50’s would be my guess). I didn’t get to have much of the story as the relationship ended being fairly short-lived. 

most the time, the stories are in the middle. In the sense that they love and continue to maintain a relationship with their gay child/sibling/relative while going through a few bumps and miscommunications along the way. 
 

personally it makes sense why I couldn’t picture the quote mentioned from oaks 16 years ago. When I realized when and where it came from, it was hard for me to picture this as “apostolic counsel” which to me had at least more of an air of more authoritative statements than an archived interview from a time many of us were likely in need of growing on this topic. Heaven knows I was. And we have several statements made in many other venues that focuses on inclusion and loving behaviors even if we disagree as how to lead out on this. We also have several more public resources from unofficial sources ranging from books, articles, a website, and podcasts talking about this as well. why would I or most members think about this rando quote from relatively ages ago (for this topic) that has evolved in both rhetoric and understanding over the last several years? Most will follow what’s said now moreso that of 20 years ago. Minus that handful of rigid members who struggle with shifts in general and are most likely to gravitate to any quote from any timeline that allows them to avoid needing to change. 
 

Of course this could have to do with how one views continuing revelation and how we’re to grow/interact with the words of church leaders in general. 
 

gotta run

with luv, 

BD

 

 

I do think the counsel has softened over the years, thankfully. I've seen some awful things, though they are hopefully becoming less common. A couple of years ago, a former bishop I know came out as gay, and his daughter wrote to him from her mission that she would have preferred that he die rather than come out. It took her about a year after she came home to reconcile with him. Again, that's hopefully nowhere near the norm, but it happens.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I do think the counsel has softened over the years, thankfully. I've seen some awful things, though they are hopefully becoming less common. A couple of years ago, a former bishop I know came out as gay, and his daughter wrote to him from her mission that she would have preferred that he die rather than come out. It took her about a year after she came home to reconcile with him. Again, that's hopefully nowhere near the norm, but it happens.

Makes sense to me. Not justifiable, just makes sense. She was young, likely leaned a little more rigid, was away from what was fully happening, and this revelation could/would likely drastically change the structural function of her family. People are more likely to react poorly when the thing that’s happening will cause major unwanted changes in their lives (such as divorce, though certainly not limited to it). Mix that with a hard time juxtaposing what her dad was (the person who likely helped raise her this straight-laced) and what her dad now is (any religious, relational, etc changes) and I can picture an event where she pushes away from this hard rather than lean into the discomfort of the moment and learn/grow. 
 

I’ve heard a few ugly stories in families as well around changing dynamics or changed family members. Most were not about this specific topic. But they tend to follow patterns. And luckily many are able to repair the relationship given time. I feel for those where this can’t or the delay to resolution is long.   

 

with luv, 

BD

Link to comment
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Of course it had an impact on your life.  Members do unloving things all the time to each other-things that have harmful impacts on others--but the question isn't whether or not church members can be really awful sometimes. It's whether or not the church teaches or expects them to do that.

(Did you come out after his interview?  Not trying to be snarky, sincere question.  I'm really sorry that your family reacted so incredibly poorly.  I only have experience with one gay person from an active family from two decades ago and he was still welcomed with open arms-even attending church with his partner in my ward once.  That family has always been a huge example to me of love and there's a reason that everyone loves them back.  I don't understand families that struggle so much with just being loving).

I know that what apostles think, even when it's not presented in any kind of an authoritative or doctrinal way, does impact members sometimes.  And I wouldn't be surprised if when this interview came out it was well known and some members embraced it. 

But, it's 16 years later and a lot has changed in the church regarding the topic since them.   Do you believe that the church expects or wants its members today to treat people who come out like your family treated you?  Do you think the church is actively teaching members to do that?  

I am not sure how long ago that interview was.  What I am sure of is that was the message my family was getting on how to treat a gay family member.  They only reacted the way they did because they though that was the way they were suppose to react to be good members of the church.  

My family wasn't an isolated case.  After I came out, I only ever heard from about 3 members of the ward again.  It was like I never existed or had been a part of their lives.  I also had a member of the high counsel that was part of my excommunication contact me and asked if he could have lunch with me.  I was happy to meet with him.  He told me that his brother came out gay about 23 years earlier and that his family did basically the same thing.  They had just started having contact with him again.  He did say he regretted the way he and his family had treated him.

Yeah, a lot has changed in the past 16 years.  I don't think that the Church currently is telling members to abandon their gay children, but yeah, it was the direction that was once being given.   I think the change in Church attitudes is a big reason why my family. decided to start including me in their lives again.  For them, now, it is like nothing ever happened and I am once again their brother/son.  But for me, there is still scar tissue.  I try to get past it, but honestly, it is very difficult for me to trust their love.

I don't think your statement that the interview was not an official position is not reality to members who were dealing with that issue at the time.  People acted on that direction.  There are real consequences for what was said.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
8 hours ago, pogi said:

Really sorry to hear about your experience with your family brother...I can't imagine! 

I just found out last week that my church-active next-door neighbor's 23 year old son is gay.  He has been living at his parents house with his boyfriend for several months now.  I thought it was just a friend.

He came out as gay to his parents when he left on his mission.  He talked to his mission president about it saying that he didn't know if he should be on a mission because he is gay.  His mission president let him go home and speak with his family about it. When he came out to his family they let him know that they are there for him.  He went back and finished his mission after that.   He and his boyfriend are both active returned missionaries with strong testimonies and trying to live up to their covenants. Apparently they both attend the temple together regularly- I thought that was really interesting that a gay "couple" were attending the temple together.   But why not?  If they are both worthy and not violating any commandments...  The family has been nothing but supportive, to the point of even letting his boyfriend stay with them (and I live in a very conservative Draper ward).  This family listens to the same conference talks that your family listens to.  They have been raised by the same leaders, but heard a different message.   All of this to say that there is probably more that went into your families reaction (which violates most leaders messages I have ever heard about how to treat our gay children) than Elder Oaks influence from an obscure interview.  I am not justifying anything Elder Oaks may have said, but I think there is more to the story, with more than sufficient counter-balance messages to what Elder Oaks may have said from other leaders. 

Times are-a-changin'  I think your families reaction reflects a larger cultural paranoia that existed in previous decades than it reflects any one church leaders message. 

 

The biggest difference is that the Church has changed its message to be way more inclusive than it was when Elder Oaks was doing the messaging 16 years ago.  Unfortunately it is a little late for me and many like myself.  But at least it has changed and my family has changed as well.  

When I came out to my bishop and stake president, I asked them specifically if I could just live with another man.  They both said no.  Gave the old avoid the very appearance of evil thing.  If I would have been allowed to just be platonically with a guy, I might have at least tried it.  Maybe it is a good thing they didn't give me that option.  I certainly am glad that I eventually found a very loving companion to share my life with.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Sometimes those artificial consequences are preferable to the natural consequences. For example, a police officer may catch a driver texting and issue a citation which may cost hundreds of dollars. The natural consequence to texting and driving is an accident - which may cost thousands of dollars or even somebody's life. Some people don't learn without the artificial consequences.

Let's plug your observation into the conversation I was commenting on.

What might those laws+artificial consequences look like, that would help LGBTQ folks "learn" to change their behavior?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Thinking said:

Sometimes those artificial consequences are preferable to the natural consequences. For example, a police officer may catch a driver texting and issue a citation which may cost hundreds of dollars. The natural consequence to texting and driving is an accident - which may cost thousands of dollars or even somebody's life. Some people don't learn without the artificial consequences.

I'm not sure this strongly counters my point that laws backed by gov revenge are a quick and easy goto - for folks who are wholly uninterested in the hard work of changing hearts and minds (the latter being what we are taught to do over and over and over by both Christ and the Church).

Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure how long ago that interview was.  What I am sure of is that was the message my family was getting on how to treat a gay family member.  They only reacted the way they did because they though that was the way they were suppose to react to be good members of the church.  

My family wasn't an isolated case.  After I came out, I only ever heard from about 3 members of the ward again.  It was like I never existed or had been a part of their lives.  I also had a member of the high counsel that was part of my excommunication contact me and asked if he could have lunch with me.  I was happy to meet with him.  He told me that his brother came out gay about 23 years earlier and that his family did basically the same thing.  They had just started having contact with him again.  He did say he regretted the way he and his family had treated him.

Yeah, a lot has changed in the past 16 years.  I don't think that the Church currently is telling members to abandon their gay children, but yeah, it was the direction that was once being given.   I think the change in Church attitudes is a big reason why my family. decided to start including me in their lives again.  For them, now, it is like nothing ever happened and I am once again their brother/son.  But for me, there is still scar tissue.  I try to get past it, but honestly, it is very difficult for me to trust their love.

I don't think your statement that the interview was not an official position is not reality to members who were dealing with that issue at the time.  People acted on that direction.  There are real consequences for what was said.

I have no doubt that this and other statements made certainly effected and nudged people to choose ostracism as the "right" course. It fits in line with what others mentioned around messages that lean(ed) heavily on us/world mentality. That those in the world could be a threat or at least a concern/bad influence. Or ones that over focus on broader cultural messages such as "tough love."

I think the hardest thing I have with some of this is describing it as THE direction given. It was a strain of direction or behavioral practice that if I took a shot in the dark also likely followed family and cultural trends that veered to messages that gave more space for divisive actions. But there are stories and experiences that, though difficult and at times hurtful due to a culture steeped in limited information and exposure, still focused on maintaining family relationships. These usually took and emphasized other narratives also prevalent in the church that have been there for years (namely focused on family relationships, loving one another, etc). 

This isn't to say that we haven't made huge shifts in dialogue/assumptions around this in the last 15 or so years both in and out of the church. We have and I do think it makes it easier to end up in the category of including and learning/loving more so than excluding and isolating. But just as I don't think Oak's early comment came out of nowhere this recent shift didn't magically appear either. They came from existing cultural and religious perspectives. One shrunk as an experience and attitude as more diverse voices and perspectives came to the forefront of both leaders and lay members alike. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Thinking said:

Sometimes those artificial consequences are preferable to the natural consequences. For example, a police officer may catch a driver texting and issue a citation which may cost hundreds of dollars. The natural consequence to texting and driving is an accident - which may cost thousands of dollars or even somebody's life. Some people don't learn without the artificial consequences.

The consequences in minor traffic violations are designed to deter the behavior but carry virtually no social scorn. It is not really comparable.

The irony is that with lgbt acceptance on the rise suddenly those who were previously doing the excluding are also feeling excluded and are not taking it as a learning experience. So far it doesn’t look like the artificial consequences are working at all for anyone.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The consequences in minor traffic violations are designed to deter the behavior but carry virtually no social scorn. It is not really comparable.

The irony is that with lgbt acceptance on the rise suddenly those who were previously doing the excluding are also feeling excluded and are not taking it as a learning experience. So far it doesn’t look like the artificial consequences are working at all for anyone.

I recently learned that in the state of Virginia, adultery is a misdemeanor with a $250 fine per occurrence. That too is on the rise, but I don't feel excluded... wait... I didn't mean it like that...

Link to comment

Wow... that was a lot of content. Some dialog more on topic than others. 

Think of the story of Cain. Sin was already in the land and rejection of the Lord by Satan had taken effect upon the posterity of Adam and Eve. It may have been the cool thing to do. What does Adam and Eve know? They're old. These are different times. being carnal and sensual are fun and popular. Cain was taught by his parents to know the Lord and follow him. Specifically, he responds in Moses 5:16, "Who is the Lord that I should know him?" Now I see an interesting word choice here of the verb to know. What is life eternal? To KNOW God and Jesus Christ. That may not be completely obtainable in this life, but Cain did not want it regardless. So why did Cain offer sacrifice? He loved Satan more than God. Satan told him to offer to God an unacceptable offer. Go back, God already laid out the offer he would accept. The offer in "similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father". Cain knew this but he, like others around him he, "loved Satan more than God".  The Lord did not have respect for Cain's offering. Cain was mad. Satan was happy Cain was mad. The Lord told Cain exactly what he could do to be "accepted". Accepted does not mean sin free. It means obedient to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, humble and ever repentant. He also explained to him the consequences of his actions. Cain rejected the Lord and fell into the sin which was lying at the door. 

I believe a better way to put this is love your neighbor, reject sin - Only in this way can you love/know God. Love your neighbor and respect their good attributes. Love God, then love your neighbor in spite of their sins, don't hate them because of their sins. If these negatives were the example to follow, the Atonement would not be possible, because we'd have an ungodly God and an unworthy Saviour. 

Jesus stated that we should be perfect like our Father in heaven and like himself... eventually (Elder Holland). It ain't easy. May not even be possible in this life. But it will be possible. God says so knowing we are all sinners.

Thank God that he loves us in spite of our sins. Thank God that he gives us his supreme judgement within the bonds of grace. Thank God we had an example of a worthy Saviour because of his love for his Father and us. 

And thank God that he will accept us if we are obedient to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, humble and ever repentant. 

Link to comment

I cannot speak for anyone else, but my experience has been that I cannot be in the energy of love and in the energy of hate at the same time. So if I want to be in the energy of love, my focus cannot be on “hating the sin”. Maybe Jesus does both simultaneously, but I'm not Jesus, and I prefer to err on the side that feels like light to me. (Actually I don't think Jesus spends any time whatsoever allowing his attention/energy to wallow at the “hatred” end of the spectrum for any reason, no matter how “justified” doing so might be.)

Taking this line of thinking a step further, and again speaking ONLY for myself, if I were to “love the sinner”, I would still be sitting in judgment and staking out the moral high ground for myself by labelling them a “sinner” while virtue-signaling my “love” for them. I am not comfortable doing that. For myself personally, “love the sinner” is an oxymoron because the very act of me labelling someone a “sinner” is inconsistent with what I think “love” calls for. I prefer to “judge not”, when it comes to other people.

Let me clarify what I mean by “judge not”: I do not judge a tiger for doing the things tigers do, but neither would I want to put myself or anyone else at the mercy of the tiger, and I would fight as hard as any of you to protect myself or anyone else from the tiger. I don't waste my time judging or hating the tiger for behaving consistent with the way he was made, but I will take prudent precautions and prudent actions.

And I understand that people are more complicated than tigers, as people may even have the power to “change their stripes” if they so choose.

I realize that "judge not" may seem totally unrealistic at first glance, but earlier in this thread is a MAGNIFICENT example of deliberately choosing not to allow oneself to be caught up in judgement of others:

 

On 10/21/2022 at 12:13 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

When I taught in a prison, I informed my students on the first day that they were not allowed to tell me their crimes because I was worried that I couldn't teach people who'd done certain 'heinous' things. They agreed, and I just pretended they were all guilty of auto theft or something.

Hamba, THIS IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! You did not allow negative judgments into YOUR space (occupying your attention, investing your energy therein), and therefore you were able to teach from a place of the maximum amount of love you could bring into the situation in the moment. With their “sins” not even being in your awareness, you could hold a MUCH higher energy for your class than you could have otherwise. And I bet those men remembered the energy they felt in your presence long after they forgot the specifics of the lesson material. Good energy is contagious as well as transformational, it gets investigators baptized, it's how tigers change their stripes, it's how the Light of the World shares His role with us.

In my opinion.

This is just a thought experiment:

Imagine what it might feel like to forgive everyone for everything. Imagine forgiving everyone you have ever interacted with for anything and everything they did or didn't do. Imagine extending that to everyone who has ever lived.  Imagine forgiving every institution, every group, every nation, every religion. Imagine not burdening yourself with condemnation towards anyone who has ever existed. Imagine gently letting go of all grievances, all angers, all disappointments, every thought or judgment (justified or not) that would stand between you and the Pure Love of Christ. Imagine even forgiving yourself for what you did, and for what you didn't do.

Doesn't that feel just a little bit better than parsing out who or what or how we should hate?

Edited by manol
Link to comment
On 10/23/2022 at 2:41 PM, tagriffy said:

The command to love your neighbor as yourself is obviously not a command to have certain emotions toward your neighbor. Such a command would be nonsensical.  You either have an emotion or you don't. Emotions can't be commanded. Actions can.

Yes!  And actions proceed from thoughts.

Actions come naturally when they are consistent with a person's thinking, so perhaps "Love your neighbor" is about a paradigm.

And perhaps "As yourself" is that paradigm.

Edited by manol
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, manol said:

Yes!  And actions proceed from thoughts.

Actions come naturally when they are consistent with a person's thinking, so perhaps "Love your neighbor" is about a paradigm.

And perhaps "As yourself" is that paradigm.

I like this. It fits well with what I said about bringing the donkey back.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/20/2022 at 10:04 PM, bluebell said:

It seems like I've been hearing this thought a lot lately: that it's toxic to teach "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it's not actually possible to love someone and also believe that they are doing something sinful.

Today when I heard it again (someone was bringing up her toxic childhood in a podcast and she used this teaching as an example), it made me wonder.  Isn't this what Jesus does for all of us?  He loves us but hates our sins, right?

So now I'm wondering two things.  First, is it impossible to love the sinner but hate the sin and second, if you believe it is, why?  Why is it possible for Jesus to love sinners and hate their sins but not possible for anyone else?

Do you love anyone? Have you ever loved anyone? Were they perfect?

Quote from Ayn Rand

"All love is exception-making" - The Fountainhead

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...