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

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

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

No doubt. I was just saying it isn’t necessarily a given that people don’t need to be reminded to love their kids. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

You are right.  He certainly thinks that “love” should be expressed all along the way.  I should have just stated a parents first responsibility to explain lovingly to their child that they are choosing a life of sin. 

Edited October 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

8 hours 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!

 

 

Is Elder Wickman referring to just the instance of bringing home a partner though?  From the full answer, he sounds like he is referring to the entire circumstance of having a child who is choosing to live contrary to what is taught by the Church by having a gay relationship.  I can easily see how dealing with a child when you don’t see it as appropriate to support them in all they are doing is harder in one sense than being there for them when you can have no reservations in your support, where you don’t even have to think but are fully there for them.  While the experience of a child having a life threatening disease is extremely difficult, one is likely working hand in hand with one’s child to beat the disease or at the very least both have the identical view of the disease as something to fight and try to remove from one’s life.   This is in a different category of difficulty than when there is potential conflict over behaviour. Facing difficulties together can be hard, but the heartbreak that can come from failing to beat a disease, etc. is different than the heartbreak that comes when you believe your child is making their life harder and preventing themselves from living a better life because they don’t recognize their choices are not the best choice (I say this from personal experience of having a daughter with diabetes and severe depression and anxiety and who has made choices that are very contrary to what I see as would make her life tons better as she has rejected God as part of her life as well as several other choices).

Quote

It’s hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than that one. It is a case by case determination. 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. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate. An even bigger error is now to become defensive of the child, because that neither helps the child nor helps the parent. That course of action, which experience teaches, is almost certainly to lead both away from the Lord’s way.

 

I may not agree with everything said in this interview, but I don’t believe they are saying what is being specifically criticized here (testify before loving rather than testify with love, child wanting to bring home gay partner more difficult than cancer, etc rather than it is one of the most difficult things in a parent’s life to be in conflict over a child’s lifestyle).

Edited October 25, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  
 

If only the church had a way of disavowing this interview, or if the apostles could give us updated guidance. If only there was an apostle with a gay son that could walk us through that. Oh wait there is one and he appears to be in lock step. 

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Can you point to an apostolic statement (not a vague reference to “love”) that contradicts anything in that interview? Again just recently we know that Elder Holland took issue with the public affirmation “I am proud to be a gay child of God”. 

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(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).

You are free to disregard apostolic counsel as you wish and I encourage you to do so. The rhetoric from Oaks is toxic, needs to be acknowledged and disavowed. 
 

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I may not agree with everything said in this interview, but I don’t believe they are saying what is being specifically criticized here (testify before loving rather than testify with love, child wanting to bring home gay partner more difficult than cancer, etc rather than it is one of the most difficult things in a parent’s life to be in conflict over a child’s lifestyle).

I am contrasting the treatment of the “trial” of “same gender attraction” with the trial of having a gay son leave the church and want to bring home a partner. 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am contrasting the treatment of the “trial” of “same gender attraction” with the trial of having a gay son leave the church and want to bring home a partner. 

I got the contrast, and I agree that’s essentially what was said: same-sex attraction is just a temporary thing and no different from the desires of unmarried heterosexuals. Just have patience and wait for the next life. But having a gay child is one of the hardest things for parents to deal with. Seems a bit off to me, too. 

For me, when my son came out, it was about as traumatizing as finding out he was left-handed. I told him I was proud of him for being open with me, gave him a hug, and said it made no difference to me.

[CV75]

3 hours 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

Sharing the photo wouldn’t be airing dirty laundry, but given the father’s request not to, it would be a dirty trick. As when a spoiled rotten kid advances his platform with a one-sided portrayal and criticism of family dynamics as proxy for his socio-political polemics.

[CV75]

General question: So which examples of lousy parenting -- strictly on the topic of showing love to a child while helping them navigate lifestyle choices -- am I seeing here constitute sarcasm, misrepresentation of Church teachings or holier-than-thou self-congratulation?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sharing the photo wouldn’t be airing dirty laundry, but given the father’s request not to, it would be a dirty trick. As when a spoiled rotten kid advances his platform with a one-sided portrayal and criticism of family dynamics as proxy for his socio-political polemics.

Edit, Nevermind. 
 

I’m a bit too passionate about this issue. I feel like I’m talking to people who want to talk about how horrible it was for Rosa Brown to sit on the bus, but ignore the …

 

Oops time to bow out before I get banned. Think I need a break. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Edit, Nevermind. 
 

I’m a bit too passionate about this issue. I feel like I’m talking to people who want to talk about how horrible it was for Rosa Brown to sit on the bus, but ignore the …

 

Oops time to bow out before I get banned. Think I need a break. 

Well, I certainly don’t feel holier than anyone, nor have I congratulated myself. I’m just sincerely grateful I didn’t have church baggage when my son came out. If saying so makes me a bad person, I can live with that. Cheers. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

... I’m a bit too passionate about this issue. I feel like I’m talking to people who want to talk about how horrible it was for Rosa Brown to sit on the bus, but ignore the …

I don't blame you.  If that's how I felt about my interlocutors, rather than seeing them as people who, in good conscience and good faith, simply have different perspectives and believe differently than I do, I would find it impossible to dialogue with them, as well.  I'm not sure how you've lasted this long in the thread, frankly.

P.S.:  And it was Rosa Parks, by the way.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If only the church had a way of disavowing this interview, or if the apostles could give us updated guidance. If only there was an apostle with a gay son that could walk us through that. Oh wait there is one and he appears to be in lock step.  
 

Since it's an interview and not considered authoritative in any way, I'm not sure why it would need to be disavowed. 

The only place I've ever seen it brought up is here by ex-mormons.  I'm sure there are some members who use it as a reference for some argument or another out there, but I've never come across them (at least not that I remember).  I've never heard the article even mentioned outside of here.   And that says something to me when the argument is that the interview is proof that the church requires its members to behave unlovingly and judgmentally towards gay family and friends.  

It's used and kept in circulation by ex-members and critical non-members, but not the church.  The church doesn't appear to be using the interview for anything other than bottom-of-the-page "other resources" on a couple of same sex attraction pages, and the link is to the newsroom rather than anything that could be considered doctrinal.

As for Elder Gong, he may be (it would not be a surprise), but we don't actually know that.  I'm not comfortable assigning any motives or intentions to him.  I don't know the man at all and I don't think one story by his son provides any real insight to me on that. 

Quote

Can you point to an apostolic statement (not a vague reference to “love”) that contradicts anything in that interview? Again just recently we know that Elder Holland took issue with the public affirmation “I am proud to be a gay child of God”.

You've made a claim and the onus really should be on you to support it.  Responding with "prove me wrong" doesn't seem very fair.  But honestly, I can't find anything where the church even mentions gay marriages.  If the church really did want (or require) members not to attend them as you are claiming, it's forgotten to tell its members that.

Quote

You are free to disregard apostolic counsel as you wish and I encourage you to do so. The rhetoric from Oaks is toxic, needs to be acknowledged and disavowed.

What apostolic counsel am I disregarding though?  

Edited October 25, 2022 by bluebell

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't blame you.  If that's how I felt about my interlocutors, rather than seeing them as people who, in good conscience and good faith, simply have different perspectives and believe differently than I do, I would find it impossible to dialogue with them, as well.  I'm not sure how you've lasted this long in the thread, frankly.

P.S.:  And it was Rosa Parks, by the way.

Also, the comparison needs to involve a) a man who is attracted only to Black women; b) identifies as such; c) engages in identity politics and leverages his negrosexuality as a matter of high principle; d) experiences a conflict between his desire and marriage and his family's religious beliefs; e) has a father who has a highly visible, worldwide ecclesiastical role in said religion; f) uses blogs to spur socio-political and ecclesiastical change and then take a selfie with his father at a restaurant.

Edited October 25, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Edit, Nevermind. 
 

I’m a bit too passionate about this issue. I feel like I’m talking to people who want to talk about how horrible it was for Rosa Brown to sit on the bus, but ignore the …

 

Oops time to bow out before I get banned. Think I need a break. 

I hope you feel better. But I would say that the comparison needs to involve a) a man who is attracted only to Black women; b) identifies as such; c) engages in identity politics and leverages his negrosexuality as a matter of high principle; d) experiences a conflict between his desire and marriage and his family's religious beliefs; e) has a father who has a highly visible, worldwide ecclesiastical role in said religion; f) uses blogs to spur socio-political and ecclesiastical change and then take a selfie with his father at a restaurant.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't blame you.  If that's how I felt about my interlocutors, rather than seeing them as people who, in good conscience and good faith, simply have different perspectives and believe differently than I do, I would find it impossible to dialogue with them, as well.  I'm not sure how you've lasted this long in the thread, frankly.

P.S.:  And it was Rosa Parks, by the way.

I knew Rosa Brown and she is no Rosa Parks  

[CV75]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I certainly don’t feel holier than anyone, nor have I congratulated myself. I’m just sincerely grateful I didn’t have church baggage when my son came out. If saying so makes me a bad person, I can live with that. Cheers. 

Yes, it is beneficial not to be carrying disappointments, wrongs, and trauma of the past around like a heavy load.

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, it is beneficial not to be carrying disappointments, wrongs, and trauma of the past around like a heavy load.

I agree with that. My life is much better since I left such things behind. 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Since it's an interview and not considered authoritative in any way, I'm not sure why it would need to be disavowed. 

The only place I've ever seen it brought up is here by ex-mormons.  I'm sure there are some members who use it as a reference for some argument or another out there, but I've never come across them (at least not that I remember).  I've never heard the article even mentioned outside of here.   And that says something to me when the argument is that the interview is proof that the church requires its members to behave unlovingly and judgmentally towards gay family and friends.  

It's used and kept in circulation by ex-members and critical non-members, but not the church.  The church doesn't appear to be using the interview for anything other than bottom-of-the-page "other resources" on a couple of same sex attraction pages, and the link is to the newsroom rather than anything that could be considered doctrinal.

As for Elder Gong, he may be (it would not be a surprise), but we don't actually know that.  I'm not comfortable assigning any motives or intentions to him.  I don't know the man at all and I don't think one story by his son provides any real insight to me on that. 

You've made a claim and the onus really should be on you to support it.  Responding with "prove me wrong" doesn't seem very fair.  But honestly, I can't find anything where the church even mentions gay marriages.  If the church really did want (or require) members not to attend them as you are claiming, it's forgotten to tell its members that.

What apostolic counsel am I disregarding though?  

I don't see how you think what Elder Oaks thinks doesn't have an impact on members and their families.  When I came out to my family, they had no contact with me for 13 years.  Never invited to any family reunions, never invited to any missionary farewells, baptisms, birthday parties, holiday dinners.  Nothing.  You don't think that had an impact on my life??

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't see how you think what Elder Oaks thinks doesn't have an impact on members and their families.  When I came out to my family, they had no contact with me for 13 years.  Never invited to any family reunions, never invited to any missionary farewells, baptisms, birthday parties, holiday dinners.  Nothing.  You don't think that had an impact on my life??

That's the bottom line for me: most of us aren't very good at drawing the line between hating the sin and loving the sinner. I'm sorry you went through that. 

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't see how you think what Elder Oaks thinks doesn't have an impact on members and their families.  When I came out to my family, they had no contact with me for 13 years.  Never invited to any family reunions, never invited to any missionary farewells, baptisms, birthday parties, holiday dinners.  Nothing.  You don't think that had an impact on my life??

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?  

Edited October 25, 2022 by bluebell

[pogi]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't see how you think what Elder Oaks thinks doesn't have an impact on members and their families.  When I came out to my family, they had no contact with me for 13 years.  Never invited to any family reunions, never invited to any missionary farewells, baptisms, birthday parties, holiday dinners.  Nothing.  You don't think that had an impact on my life??

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. 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes 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.  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. 

 

That is an unusual story. Very different from my friend (active LDS) who has been told to avoid making close friends with other gay men and especially to not put himself in positions where he might be tempted. That would definitely preclude living with a boyfriend. Maybe it's just a particularly understanding bishop in your neighbor's case. It's encouraging, though. 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That is an unusual story. Very different from my friend (active LDS) who has been told to avoid making close friends with other gay men and especially to not put himself in positions where he might be tempted. That would definitely preclude living with a boyfriend. Maybe it's just a particularly understanding bishop in your neighbor's case. It's encouraging, though. 

I agree that it is unusual.  I was kind of surprised by the situation myself.  I honestly don't know if the bishop approves of the situation or not... but they are still temple worthy so I don't know if there is much he can do.  My point is to highlight was is probably the opposite extreme (and I think there is probably more extreme examples than this of Mormon parents supporting the gay marriage of their child etc.).  While cali-boys experience may have been more common in previous decades for various reasons, I don't think we see that near as much anymore.  I think the VAST majority of Latter-day Saint parents (and probably all apostles) would view the reaction of his parents as outrageously out-of-line and wrong. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I agree that it is unusual.  I was kind of surprised by the situation myself.  I honestly don't know if the bishop approves of the situation or not... but they are still temple worthy so I don't know if there is much he can do.  My point is to highlight was is probably the opposite extreme (and I think there is probably more extreme examples than this of Mormon parents supporting the gay marriage of their child etc.).  While cali-boys experience may have been more common in previous decades for various reasons, I don't think we see that near as much anymore.  I think the VAST majority of Latter-day Saint parents (and probably all apostles) would view the reaction of his parents as outrageously out-of-line and wrong. 

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

[Chum]

1 hour 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.

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.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Chum