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

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not exactly sure what the bolded part means,

 

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

the idea that we should never be concerned about the harmful actions of anyone but ourselves.

Is this the same as loving/not loving? Imo it’s not- That’s the hard part.

 

The conversation between California and yourself seemed to me to move in a direction from “can we love” to “should we be concerned about harmful actions” - 

bottom line is that given the complexities of life, we sometimes succeed at the directive to love, but we all fail to some degree.  I suppose there’s part of me that wants folks reading this to be more loving Especially to those who “commit sexual ‘sin’” or who smoke and drink or are trans or who drive slowly in the left lane— but I suppose I need to Stop concerning myself with The failures of others and focus on my own 😉

For what it’s worth I would very much trust you personally with my flaws.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 

The conversation between California and yourself seemed to me to move in a direction from “can we love” to “should we be concerned about harmful actions” - 

Ah, got it.  I think for myself, I'm trying to figure how how to do both.  Love at the same time as being concerned about harmful actions.  Figuring out what that looks like or how it works is hard.  Just doing one or the other would be mentally easier, and I really suck at multitasking.

Quote

 

bottom line is that given the complexities of life, we sometimes succeed at the directive to love, but we all fail to some degree.  I suppose there’s part of me that wants folks reading this to be more loving Especially to those who “commit sexual ‘sin’” or who smoke and drink or are trans or who drive slowly in the left lane— but I suppose I need to Stop concerning myself with The failures of others and focus on my own 😉

For what it’s worth I would very much trust you personally with my flaws.

 

Back at ya.  

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 ... I think for myself, I'm trying to figure how how to do both.  Love at the same time as being concerned about harmful actions.  Figuring out what that looks like or how it works is hard.  Just doing one or the other would be mentally easier, and I really suck at multitasking. ... [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

 LOL!  

I feel ya, Sister!  I feel ya!  

[smac97]

On 10/21/2022 at 8:12 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I love my Latter-day Saint relatives, but find their beliefs and the way they live their lives to be abominations. While I welcome them for brief visits in my home, I make them leave their family members behind. I don’t want to be seen with them in public. And I certainly don’t want their lifestyle to influence my children. I feel for those that struggle with this particularly harmful religion, but I love love love them. 

And this: "If it were me, as the son in that relationship, I would one, not feel loved, and two I would cut off all interaction with the offending parent barring repentance. Life is far too short."

I am struggling to differentiate your own statements about your "Latter-day Saint relatives" from your characterization of Elder Gong.  I say this because I am trying to appreciate and learn from your perspective.  But what you have said in this thread seems difficult to reconcile with your apparent aspirations about how people should behave.

Regarding your relatives, you publicly lambaste "their beliefs and the way they live their lives" as "abominations."

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

You limit your interactions with them ("brief visits in my home").
You "make them leave their family members behind" (not sure what that means).

I haven't read much of Matt's writings, so I can't speak as to whether Elder Gong has done these things.

You "don't want to be seen with them in public."

This is where you seem to be more extreme than Elder Gong.  From Matt's blog entry:

Quote

There’s a trend that I’ve observed that I find disturbing. People keep asking for me to put them in contact with Elder Gong so that he can “help them stay in the Church.” I’ve also seen some chatter that he’s an ally or going to bring about change. Despite him being highly visible, there’s still a very strict hierarchy even at the upper echelons of the Church. Even if he wanted to affect change, he’s constrained by seniority, tradition, and public perception.

The first time I brought a partner home to meet my parents, we all went out to dinner together. I picked a restaurant I knew my parents liked, but would be a neutral space for them to meet him. Introductions went well and we all rode in one car to the restaurant. Dinner was everything I’d hoped for: conversation was easy enough, everyone was polite. With all the pep talks I’d given myself about how to “break emotional glass in case of emergency,” I was overjoyed it was going so well. I got caught up in the moment and pulled out my phone to snap a selfie with everyone at the table. Dinner concluded without a hitch and we headed back to the house.

Just as we’re pulling into the driveway Elder Gong spoke up,

“Please don’t post that photo anywhere.”

Unsure what he was referring to, I asked for clarification.

“Please don’t post the photo from dinner.  We wouldn’t want people to get the wrong idea.”

My giddiness turned bitter. I pushed back, anger flaring in my chest.

“What’s the wrong idea? That you had dinner with your son?”

“Please don’t post the photo. We wouldn’t want people to get the wrong idea.”

Elder Gong will be polite and cordial, but if there’s even a chance that his actions could have public ramifications… It’s better that he and a potential future son-in-law never co-exist in the public eye. For anyone looking for someone to pin your hopes on that the Church will change, it’s not him.

You don't want their "lifestyle" to "influence" your children.

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

You find their lifestyle / behavioral code to be "particularly harmful."

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

But you declare (and I believe you) that you "love love love them."

You reserve the right to disagree with your family's choices while still insisting that you love them, but you deny that same privilege to the Latter-day Saints:

• "My parents don’t approve of my spouse of 10 years? Yeah, they can take a hike and shove their 'love' up … somewhere."

You are at liberty to not only not "approve" of your relatives' beliefs, but openly disparage them, yet here you seem to condemn your parents if they don't "approve" of something in your life. 

I also construe your scare quotes ("'love'") as sarcastic.  That is, that you don't believe their professed love is sincere (again, because they don't "approve" of something in your life).  But you then proceed to declare that you don't "approve" of their life choices, but that you still "love love love them." 

Why is it that you can A) sincerely disagree/disapprove with your relatives while still B) loving them, but your relatives are not allowed to do the same?

• "If it were me, as the son in that relationship, I would one, not feel loved, and two I would cut off all interaction with the offending parent barring repentance. Life is far too short."

If your relatives read what you have said about them here, do you think they would "feel loved?"

The Brethren have expressly and emphatically encouraged us to not do what you are asserting you would do here ("cut off all interaction").  

• "The love is so thick it’s toxic."

See above comments about your denial of your relatives' sincerity in their declarations of love, notwithstanding their putative disagreement with some of your life choices.  You disagree with their life choices (publicly, hugely), but then insist that you still "love love love" them (and, again, I believe you).  

• "If I have a gay son that gets married, adopts two children and lives out his life, how much love can he feel if I believe his family is counterfeit, a cause for the prophesied destruction of civilization, and that his relationship is an abomination. What does 'love' even mean in that case?"

Well, it might mean something substantively similar to what you are doing.  You find your relatives' religious beliefs to be "an abomination," which nevertheless does not preclude you from expressing "love love love" for them.  If you can allow such a thing for yourself, why not for them?

• "I’m sincerely reflecting the 'love' that prophet seers and revelators have told members to express to their LGBTQ family members. It’s sarcasm, because I don’t feel the way I expressed, and I would be hard pressed to say love is possible in the scenario I expressed.  So if someone believes that my identity is a threat to civilization, that expressing my identity is an abomination, and that my family is counterfeit and then says they 'love' me, I won’t believe them."

What should we make, then, of your A) disparagements of your relatives life choices as "an abomination" followed by B) a declaration that you "love love love" them?  If you refuse to believe such declarations coming from others, why should we believe them coming from you?

• "I do know that if you refuse to let them around your children, and don’t want to be seen with them in public (lest your friends think you approve of thier lifestyle), then the answer is likely no {they don't really 'love' you}."

When you "don't want to be seen with them {your relatives} in public," that is acceptable, but if they "don't want to to be seen {} in public" in that context, that is not acceptable?

Why?

I normally don't like to inquire as to the personal lives of others.  But here, Matt Gong is airing his family's dirty laundry, as are you with yours.  And you are both disparaging the Church, its members, leaders, etc.  So I guess this is a no-holds-barred kind of discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And this: "If it were me, as the son in that relationship, I would one, not feel loved, and two I would cut off all interaction with the offending parent barring repentance. Life is far too short."

I am struggling to differentiate your own statements about your "Latter-day Saint relatives" from your characterization of Elder Gong.  I say this because I am trying to appreciate and learn from your perspective.  But what you have said in this thread seems difficult to reconcile with your apparent aspirations about how people should behave.

Regarding your relatives, you publicly lambaste "their beliefs and the way they live their lives" as "abominations."

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

You limit your interactions with them ("brief visits in my home").
You "make them leave their family members behind" (not sure what that means).

I haven't read much of Matt's writings, so I can't speak as to whether Elder Gong has done these things.

You "don't want to be seen with them in public."

This is where you seem to be more extreme than Elder Gong.  From Matt's blog entry:

You don't want their "lifestyle" to "influence" your children.

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

You find their lifestyle / behavioral code to be "particularly harmful."

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

But you declare (and I believe you) that you "love love love them."

You reserve the right to disagree with your family's choices while still insisting that you love them, but you deny that same privilege to the Latter-day Saints:

• "My parents don’t approve of my spouse of 10 years? Yeah, they can take a hike and shove their 'love' up … somewhere."

You are at liberty to not only not "approve" of your relatives' beliefs, but openly disparage them, yet here you seem to condemn your parents if they don't "approve" of something in your life. 

I also construe your scare quotes ("'love'") as sarcastic.  That is, that you don't believe their professed love is sincere (again, because they don't "approve" of something in your life).  But you then proceed to declare that you don't "approve" of their life choices, but that you still "love love love them." 

Why is it that you can A) sincerely disagree/disapprove with your relatives while still B) loving them, but your relatives are not allowed to do the same?

• "If it were me, as the son in that relationship, I would one, not feel loved, and two I would cut off all interaction with the offending parent barring repentance. Life is far too short."

If your relatives read what you have said about them here, do you think they would "feel loved?"

The Brethren have expressly and emphatically encouraged us to not do what you are asserting you would do here ("cut off all interaction").  

• "The love is so thick it’s toxic."

See above comments about your denial of your relatives' sincerity in their declarations of love, notwithstanding their putative disagreement with some of your life choices.  You disagree with their life choices (publicly, hugely), but then insist that you still "love love love" them (and, again, I believe you).  

• "If I have a gay son that gets married, adopts two children and lives out his life, how much love can he feel if I believe his family is counterfeit, a cause for the prophesied destruction of civilization, and that his relationship is an abomination. What does 'love' even mean in that case?"

Well, it might mean something substantively similar to what you are doing.  You find your relatives' religious beliefs to be "an abomination," which nevertheless does not preclude you from expressing "love love love" for them.  If you can allow such a thing for yourself, why not for them?

• "I’m sincerely reflecting the 'love' that prophet seers and revelators have told members to express to their LGBTQ family members. It’s sarcasm, because I don’t feel the way I expressed, and I would be hard pressed to say love is possible in the scenario I expressed.  So if someone believes that my identity is a threat to civilization, that expressing my identity is an abomination, and that my family is counterfeit and then says they 'love' me, I won’t believe them."

What should we make, then, of your A) disparagements of your relatives life choices as "an abomination" followed by B) a declaration that you "love love love" them?  If you refuse to believe such declarations coming from others, why should we believe them coming from you?

• "I do know that if you refuse to let them around your children, and don’t want to be seen with them in public (lest your friends think you approve of thier lifestyle), then the answer is likely no {they don't really 'love' you}."

When you "don't want to be seen with them {your relatives} in public," that is acceptable, but if they "don't want to to be seen {} in public" in that context, that is not acceptable?

Why?

I normally don't like to inquire as to the personal lives of others.  But here, Matt Gong is airing his family's dirty laundry, as are you with yours.  And you are both disparaging the Church, its members, leaders, etc.  So I guess this is a no-holds-barred kind of discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Did you miss the part where he said this was sarcasm that does not reflect his actual behavior? Talk about misreading someone. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

am struggling to differentiate your own statements about your "Latter-day Saint relatives" from your characterization of Elder Gong. 

Tone is hard to read online, but yeah, I was just parroting statements from church leaders on the proper way to show love. If you find that “love” offensive, take it up with them. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Did you miss the part where he said this was sarcasm that does not reflect his actual behavior? Talk about misreading someone. 

I did not miss it.  I just did not appreciate that he was referring to the entirety of his remarks in the thread.

Lesson learned.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I just did not appreciate that he was referring to the entirety of his remarks in the thread.

 

Just that first post. I thought it was outrageous enough to be clear, but as with all things text based, making it clear for everyone is difficult. 

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And this: "If it were me, as the son in that relationship, I would one, not feel loved, and two I would cut off all interaction with the offending parent barring repentance. Life is far too short."

I am struggling to differentiate your own statements about your "Latter-day Saint relatives" from your characterization of Elder Gong.  I say this because I am trying to appreciate and learn from your perspective.  But what you have said in this thread seems difficult to reconcile with your apparent aspirations about how people should behave.

Regarding your relatives, you publicly lambaste "their beliefs and the way they live their lives" as "abominations."

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

You limit your interactions with them ("brief visits in my home").
You "make them leave their family members behind" (not sure what that means).

I haven't read much of Matt's writings, so I can't speak as to whether Elder Gong has done these things.

You "don't want to be seen with them in public."

This is where you seem to be more extreme than Elder Gong.  From Matt's blog entry:

You don't want their "lifestyle" to "influence" your children.

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

You find their lifestyle / behavioral code to be "particularly harmful."

I don't think Elder Gong has said anything like this, either about his son's lifestyle or anyone else's.

But you declare (and I believe you) that you "love love love them."

You reserve the right to disagree with your family's choices while still insisting that you love them, but you deny that same privilege to the Latter-day Saints:

• "My parents don’t approve of my spouse of 10 years? Yeah, they can take a hike and shove their 'love' up … somewhere."

You are at liberty to not only not "approve" of your relatives' beliefs, but openly disparage them, yet here you seem to condemn your parents if they don't "approve" of something in your life. 

I also construe your scare quotes ("'love'") as sarcastic.  That is, that you don't believe their professed love is sincere (again, because they don't "approve" of something in your life).  But you then proceed to declare that you don't "approve" of their life choices, but that you still "love love love them." 

Why is it that you can A) sincerely disagree/disapprove with your relatives while still B) loving them, but your relatives are not allowed to do the same?

• "If it were me, as the son in that relationship, I would one, not feel loved, and two I would cut off all interaction with the offending parent barring repentance. Life is far too short."

If your relatives read what you have said about them here, do you think they would "feel loved?"

The Brethren have expressly and emphatically encouraged us to not do what you are asserting you would do here ("cut off all interaction").  

• "The love is so thick it’s toxic."

See above comments about your denial of your relatives' sincerity in their declarations of love, notwithstanding their putative disagreement with some of your life choices.  You disagree with their life choices (publicly, hugely), but then insist that you still "love love love" them (and, again, I believe you).  

• "If I have a gay son that gets married, adopts two children and lives out his life, how much love can he feel if I believe his family is counterfeit, a cause for the prophesied destruction of civilization, and that his relationship is an abomination. What does 'love' even mean in that case?"

Well, it might mean something substantively similar to what you are doing.  You find your relatives' religious beliefs to be "an abomination," which nevertheless does not preclude you from expressing "love love love" for them.  If you can allow such a thing for yourself, why not for them?

• "I’m sincerely reflecting the 'love' that prophet seers and revelators have told members to express to their LGBTQ family members. It’s sarcasm, because I don’t feel the way I expressed, and I would be hard pressed to say love is possible in the scenario I expressed.  So if someone believes that my identity is a threat to civilization, that expressing my identity is an abomination, and that my family is counterfeit and then says they 'love' me, I won’t believe them."

What should we make, then, of your A) disparagements of your relatives life choices as "an abomination" followed by B) a declaration that you "love love love" them?  If you refuse to believe such declarations coming from others, why should we believe them coming from you?

• "I do know that if you refuse to let them around your children, and don’t want to be seen with them in public (lest your friends think you approve of thier lifestyle), then the answer is likely no {they don't really 'love' you}."

When you "don't want to be seen with them {your relatives} in public," that is acceptable, but if they "don't want to to be seen {} in public" in that context, that is not acceptable?

Why?

I normally don't like to inquire as to the personal lives of others.  But here, Matt Gong is airing his family's dirty laundry, as are you with yours.  And you are both disparaging the Church, its members, leaders, etc.  So I guess this is a no-holds-barred kind of discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

From the excerpt you shared, I'm sure the son understands his high-visibility father can't afford to divert his energies from his broader religious ministry into managing the publicity generated by of one of his high-visibility, socio-politically active children. People have different sensitivities, for different reasons, about sharing matters of family significance with the public and it is good to respect another's wishes. I bet Elder Gong respects his son's agency in releasing the picture on social media if he so chooses against his request. Who-loves-who more, or how, or who-respects-who's agency more, is a much larger and broader dynamic than suggested by this vignette and its use.

Edited October 24, 2022 by CV75

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And you are both disparaging the Church, its members, leaders, etc.

Only disparaging them using the same language and tactics that the Church, and its leaders advocate and use. Again the whole first post was reflecting church rhetoric back at Latter-day Saints. Holding up a mirror to the “love” that the church advocates its member show to LGBTQ family members. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From the excerpt you shared, I'm sure the son understands his high-visibility father can't afford to divert his energies from his broader religious ministry into managing the publicity generated by of one of his high-visibility, socio-politically active children.

Yes. 

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

People have different sensitivities, for different reasons, about sharing matters of family significance with the public and it is good to respect another's wishes.

Yep.  This is a reasonable preference, and a reasonable request.  Lots of people prefer to keep their personal lives personal.

I don't think much of people who air their family's dirty laundry online.  It is coercive and exploitative, and can injure personal relationships.

Years ago as a missionary in Taiwan my companion and I attended a mission-wide meeting at which we were visited by Elder Maxwell.  Prior to the meeting our mission president instructed us, in no uncertain terms, to not request any photographs with him (Elder Maxwell).  He did not go into detail, but I can imagine all sorts of quite legitimate reasons for Elder Maxwell to have this sort of policy in place.  Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the meeting my comp approached the MP and Elder Maxwell, handed his camera to the MP and said "Take a picture, will ya, president?", then slung his right arm around Elder Maxwell's shoulders and flashed a "V" sign with his left hand (a common thing to do in Taiwan, not sure why).  For some inexplicable reason, the mission president acquiesced and took the picture.  Weeks later, when I was being transferred, I had my comp sign my "Duck Book" (a sort of yearbook/memoir that missionaries in our mission kept informally).  My comp signed a page and included a copy of his picture with Elder Maxwell (he said he had made a bunch of copies of it).  Not the worst thing in the world to do, but a breach of decorum, I think.  And a breach of Elder Maxwell's request.

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I bet Elder Gong respects his son's agency in releasing the picture on social media if he so chooses against his request. Who-loves-who more, or how, or who-respects-who's agency more, is a much larger and broader dynamic than suggested by this vignette and its use.

And a dynamic that, IMO, ought not be hashed out in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes. 

Yep.  This is a reasonable preference, and a reasonable request.  Lots of people prefer to keep their personal lives personal.

I don't think much of people who air their family's dirty laundry online.  It is coercive and exploitative, and can injure personal relationships.

Years ago as a missionary in Taiwan my companion and I attended a mission-wide meeting at which we were visited by Elder Maxwell.  Prior to the meeting our mission president instructed us, in no uncertain terms, to not request any photographs with him (Elder Maxwell).  He did not go into detail, but I can imagine all sorts of quite legitimate reasons for Elder Maxwell to have this sort of policy in place.  Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the meeting my comp approached the MP and Elder Maxwell, handed his camera to the MP and said "Take a picture, will ya, president?", then slung his right arm around Elder Maxwell's shoulders and flashed a "V" sign with his left hand (a common thing to do in Taiwan, not sure why).  For some inexplicable reason, the mission president acquiesced and took the picture.  Weeks later, when I was being transferred, I had my comp sign my "Duck Book" (a sort of yearbook/memoir that missionaries in our mission kept informally).  My comp signed a page and included a copy of his picture with Elder Maxwell (he said he had made a bunch of copies of it).  Not the worst thing in the world to do, but a breach of decorum, I think.  And a breach of Elder Maxwell's request.

And a dynamic that, IMO, ought not be hashed out in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've followed Matt Gong's writing for quite a while. He's a great writer and seems to be a very good man; his parents seem to have raised him well. One thing he does is distinguish between his dad and Elder Gong because he recognizes that Elder Gong does things his dad probably wouldn't do because of his calling (such as not wanting the photo to be published and give the wrong idea). I can relate to this because, when I had my faith crisis, some friends and family treated me in ways I did not expect and that deeply hurt me. I ended up telling myself that they were doing these things because, for whatever reason, they thought this was how a church member was supposed to respond to someone like me. And of course I didn't always handle things well myself. I appreciate Matt Gong's efforts to not take things personally and not condemn people he loves. 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Only disparaging them using the same language and tactics that the Church, and its leaders advocate and use. Again the whole first post was reflecting church rhetoric back at Latter-day Saints. Holding up a mirror to the “love” that the church advocates its member show to LGBTQ family members. 

I’ve not seen this kind of love advocated to church members by the church though. I’m sure there are members who do it, possibly even leaders, but that to me is different than teaching or requiring others to do the same.

Can you share a here is it taught by the church that this is how we are expected to show love to LGTBQ+ family members?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've followed Matt Gong's writing for quite a while. He's a great writer and seems to be a very good man; his parents seem to have raised him well. One thing he does is distinguish between his dad and Elder Gong because he recognizes that Elder Gong does things his dad probably wouldn't do because of his calling (such as not wanting the photo to be published and give the wrong idea). I can relate to this because, when I had my faith crisis, some friends and family treated me in ways I did not expect and that deeply hurt me. I ended up telling myself that they were doing these things because, for whatever reason, they thought this was how a church member was supposed to respond to someone like me. And of course I didn't always handle things well myself. I appreciate Matt Gong's efforts to not take things personally and not condemn people he loves. 

The way that people (members and non) like to take anything an apostle does and extrapolate it into support or nonsupport for their personal beliefs is probably incredibly annoying for them.

I can appreciate being hyper aware of how every public action connected to a hot-button topic is likely to be interpreted through a lense of bias and deciding some public posts aren’t worth it.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve not seen this kind of love advocated to church members by the church though. I’m sure there are members who do it, possibly even leaders, but that to me is different than teaching or requiring others to do the same.

Can you share a here is it taught by the church that this is how we are expected to show love to LGTBQ+ family members?

If you have a gay child decide to have sex with someone of the same sex, Elder Oaks instructs parents that their FIRST responsibility is not to love their child, but to testify to them (as if they don’t know the church position) about how sinful that is. Further, once this line is crossed and the gay child has a partner, Elder Oaks advises that “in most circumstances” the parents will not allow the child and their partner back into their home. “Surely” if there are children present they will “likely” not let them home to visit, or for holidays. So we have the answer that most likely fit families (most and likely indicating more than half). Elder Oaks does allow that perhaps “some” will let the partner come but certainly overnight and “Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”” 
 

Scare quoted on “partnership”, really. 
 

The whole interview is disgusting to me. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Edited October 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you have a gay child decide to have sex with someone of the same sex, Elder Oaks instructs parents that their FIRST responsibility is not to love their child, but to testify to them (as if they don’t know the church position) about how sinful that is. Further, once this line is crossed and the gay child has a partner, Elder Oaks advises that “in most circumstances” the parents will not allow the child and their partner back into their home. “Surely” if there are children present they will “likely” not let them home to visit, or for holidays. So we have the answer that most likely fit families (most and likely indicating more than half). Elder Oaks does allow that perhaps “some” will let the partner come but certainly overnight and “Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”” 
 

Scare quoted on “partnership”, really. 
 

The whole interview is disgusting to me. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Oooof.  Well, he and I are quite different.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Oooof.  Well, he and I are quite different.  

And Oaks on the challenge of being gay in the church?

“Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with….

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here.“

Elder Wickman on a gay son, wanting to bring his partner home:

“It’s hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than that one. ” 

 

Cancer, death? Really!? Being gay is just one more day in mortality, but facing a gay child that wants to bring his partner home? Oof that’s hard!

 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And Oaks on the challenge of being gay in the church?

“Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with….

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here.“

Elder Wickman on a gay son, wanting to bring his partner home:

“It’s hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than that one. ” 

 

Cancer, death? Really!? Being gay is just one more day in mortality, but facing a gay child that wants to bring his partner home? Oof that’s hard!

 

 

Yeah, I just read that interview. Threw up in my mouth a little. I’m so glad I never had any desire to treat my son that way. And I’m glad my grandkids won’t face that, either. I feel like we dodged a bullet. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, I just read that interview. Threw up in my mouth a little. I’m so glad I never had any desire to treat my son that way. And I’m glad my grandkids won’t face that, either. I feel like we dodged a bullet. 

Yes. And I think it is very reasonable to view Elder Gong through this lens, particularly this statement: “ Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.””

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you have a gay child decide to have sex with someone of the same sex, Elder Oaks instructs parents that their FIRST responsibility is not to love their child, but to testify to them (as if they don’t know the church position) about how sinful that is. Further, once this line is crossed and the gay child has a partner, Elder Oaks advises that “in most circumstances” the parents will not allow the child and their partner back into their home. “Surely” if there are children present they will “likely” not let them home to visit, or for holidays. So we have the answer that most likely fit families (most and likely indicating more than half). Elder Oaks does allow that perhaps “some” will let the partner come but certainly overnight and “Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”” 
 

Scare quoted on “partnership”, really. 
 

The whole interview is disgusting to me. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

This is an interview from 2006 that is, for all intents and purposes, buried on the website.  It's definitely not something that the church is putting out there to advocate for how to treat those in the lgtbq+ community.  

Can we really use this one interview as the church's teachings on the subject to their members?   I mean, on the church's dedicated "same sex attraction" page, the first thing that family and friends are instructed to do is to "start with love". 

On that page under Balancing Love and Law, President Oaks is quoted  “As Latter-day Saints, many of us, not all of us, but many of us are inclined to insist on the law and do so in an unloving way.  I receive many letters from people who are devastated by the choices being made by someone in their family. And they say, ‘What are we to do?’ And the first thing I always suggest is keep loving them."

Either some are misunderstanding what he was saying in the interview, or he's changed his opinion greatly on the subject. (I wouldn't be surprised if it was some of both)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is an interview from 2006 that is, for all intents and purposes, buried on the website.  It's definitely not something that the church is putting out there to advocate for how to treat those in the lgtbq+ community.  

Can we really use this one interview as the church's teachings on the subject to their members?   I mean, on the church's dedicated "same sex attraction" page, the first thing that family and friends are instructed to do is to "start with love". 
 

Can you point to apostolic guidance that says it’s okay to attend your gay child’s wedding or that contradicts the Oaks Wickman interview?

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

On that page under Balancing Love and Law, President Oaks is quoted  “As Latter-day Saints, many of us, not all of us, but many of us are inclined to insist on the law and do so in an unloving way.  I receive many letters from people who are devastated by the choices being made by someone in their family. And they say, ‘What are we to do?’ And the first thing I always suggest is keep loving them."

Either some are misunderstanding what he was saying in the interview, or he's changed his opinion greatly on the subject. (I wouldn't be surprised if it was some of both)

“Love” is mentioned 20 times in the interview I quoted. Clearly Elder Oaks and Wickman, think that is what love looks like. From the interview:

“The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation.

I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin.”

This is Wickman and directly followed Oaks statement on gay partners. This is what leaders mean when they say “love the sinner, condemn the sin”

 

ETA:Further, we know that Gong aligns himself with Oaks as evidenced by his statement that the photo at dinner might give people the wrong idea (“partnership” approval). Elder Holland, in his recent address advocated “love” but called out a gay student for saying he was proud to be a gay child of God. He also pointed to rainbows at BYU as a problem. I don’t see any daylight between them and Oaks here. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Elder Oaks instructs parents that their FIRST responsibility is not to love their child, but to testify to them

My guess is Elder Oaks phrased it that way because he assumes loving their child is not a responsibility, but a quality already inherent in the relationship and his concern with love is in using it in their expressions of beliefs, etc.

In the quote, he starts out by referring to lovingly instructing, so I don’t see him separating the two as you have here.

Quote

ELDER OAKS: It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth.

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

My guess is Elder Oaks phrased it that way because he assumes loving their child is not a responsibility but already inherent in the relationship.  Seriously, it is the rare parent I would feel the need to remind them they need to love their child, though I have met some I would emphasize that first.

I’ve met far too many parents in and out of the church whose love seems decidedly conditional. Parents don’t kick their gay children out of their homes because they love them. 

I’ve mentioned the boy I had in Young Men whose parents cut off all contact with him when he turned down a mission call. Yes, that’s extreme, but it happens too often. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to apostolic guidance that says it’s okay to attend your gay child’s wedding or that contradicts the Oaks Wickman interview?

“Love” is mentioned 20 times in the interview I quoted. Clearly Elder Oaks and Wickman, think that is what love looks like. From the interview:

“The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation.

I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin.”

This is Wickman and directly followed Oaks statement on gay partners. This is what leaders mean when they say “love the sinner, condemn the sin”

 

ETA:Further, we know that Gong aligns himself with Oaks as evidenced by his statement that the photo at dinner might give people the wrong idea (“partnership” approval). Elder Holland, in his recent address advocated “love” but called out a gay student for saying he was proud to be a gay child of God. He also pointed to rainbows at BYU as a problem. I don’t see any daylight between them and Oaks here. 

I realize that many, you included, do not like or agree with the church's view on SS relationships.  There really isn't anything short of them embracing such relationships that is going to be enough for those who feel that way.  I have no problem with that.

But, the issue here is what does the church teach about how family members are to respond to their gay friends and family.  I can't find anything where the church teaches what you've claimed it requires of its members. 

We have a 16 year old interview--that the church doesn't publish anywhere that I can find outside of the newsroom archives though I acknowledge it does link to it as an additional resource on some of it's pages--as the sole reference to support your factual claims.  And even in that interview Elder Oaks leaves room for members who would do things differently than he would do them, with no condemnation of those differences.  

Considering how much the church's views on homosexuality have changed in those 16 years, I don't see how one interview from almost 2 decades ago can be used as evidence of what the church currently expects of members.

(I don't agree with a lot in Elder Oaks interview, but the nice thing is that the church never asks me to. The church certainly is not teaching me that I should use it as any sort of template in my own life, and it even provides resources that sometimes contradict what the interview presented.  Which doesn't jive if what you are accusing the church of is actually true).

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve met far too many parents in and out of the church whose love seems decidedly conditional. Parents don’t kick their gay children out of their homes because they love them. 

I’ve mentioned the boy I had in Young Men whose parents cut off all contact with him when he turned down a mission call. Yes, that’s extreme, but it happens too often. 

And when it does, I don't think a single one of the apostles would condone it.