Yes, in a way, there is a hierarchy of sins, e.g., consequences of not doing one’s home teaching =/= consequences of murder (I hope! ;-D Still, perhaps someone is adept enough at manipulating logic that s/he can do a sort of “six degrees of separation” thing which shows that, actually, the two, and their consequences, are equivalent.) On the other hand, sin is sin in that all sin separates us from God, no matter what the sin.

I love the LDS production, “The Prodigal Son” (1992). (Yeah, I know: sappy, campy, dated, whatever, but what can I say? I’m a sucker for sap, and camp, and datedness, and whatever!) I especially like the scene in which Jim’s real problem is laid bare. Speaking of Tom, he tells Joanne, “There’s a big difference between what he’s done and anything I might’ve done.” And she replies, “The difference I see is that one of you is trying to repent and one of you isn’t.” He asks, “Since when have I become the big sinner?” And she replies, “The minute that you let your pride convince you that you’re better than somebody else.”

Then, she goes on to say, “Just like cocaine and alcohol almost destroyed your brother, jealousy and bitterness are trying to destroy you. You’ve got to realize that it’s not just your brother with the ‘big sins’ that needs Jesus Christ. You need him just as desperately as any of the rest of us do. If you think you can overcome this bitterness by yourself, you’re just fooling yourself. Tom couldn’t overcome his problems alone, and you can’t, and I can’t. Nobody can. The bottom line is, nobody can make it halfway through this life or into the next without the Savior.”

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a lot of us have Jim’s attitude when it comes to homosexual behavior because we’ve let our pride convince us that we’re better than those who have that particular temptation. But let’s face it: if all sin had the “ick factor” that homosexual behavior does for many of us, it’d be a lot easier to keep the commandments. As much as I think homosexual behavior is a sin, I can’t demand that someone accept my paradigm. Anyone who does share my paradigm and who has that particular struggle has, in some respects, almost a uniquely tough row to hoe, so it’s easy for ME to say, “Well, everyone should keep the commandments.” And while I think people should be ready to defend the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of us seem quite eager to impart “Living Water” to others we believe desperately need it … through a fire hose set at full blast.

Say not, “Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are.” Rather, say, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.” And let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

Brad L, what a mormophobic you are. Deny it at your own peril.

If homophobia is an irrational fear and individual believers are rationally deciding to follow the brethren then how can that be homophobia by any of the senses you accept with the term? Sincerely? Now perhaps you think it’s the brethren who are irrational and so it’s indirectly homophobia. But if the brethren are sincerely trying to follow the revealed commands of no sex before marriage and marriage only between a man and a wife, then are they being irrational?

Whether what the brethren say is “superior” to anything else said I don’t know. I can only say I’ve covenanted to follow the words of God revealed through them. I’ve had no revelation saying they are wrong. Therefore I see it entailing following them. If you see a solution out of this that is rational I’m all ears.

I don’t think I’m making excuses but rather explaining the reasoning (which again makes it rational and thus by definition not homophobia if one is actually following the semantics of the term rather than applying it more broadly)

I’m here calling out nonsensical homophobia denial.

But you haven’t shown it to be nonsensical in the least. I can tell you feel strongly about it but that’s not the same as the opposing views being non-sensical.

I never conceded that the term ‘homophobic’ is problematic.

You said in (52), “Clark, reading your clarification, I don’t really have any beef with your view. My issue is with those who are denying the prevalence of homophobia in Mormon culture outright.”

Since my comments were about how the term was used in problematic ways I confess I’m confused as to how you “don’t have any beef with my view” and simultaneously don’t concede it. To me a contradiction is inherently irrational. I’ll leave the implications of that alone. (grin)

The issue is LDS people being conflicted about sympathizing with LGBTQ+ victims to the same extent that they sympathize with other victims of mass shootings.

Again, I said, “I’m just deeply skeptical most Mormons wouldn’t empathize with the victims of the terrorist attack.” I think most empathize the same as they do any victims of terrorism or other violence. Obviously I have no way of confirming how many do. But then neither do you.

“I can completely understand why the brethren feel like they have no choice given what has been revealed. Thus we need some sort of revelation to clarify what the Lord wants done. To simply label homophobic this huge conundrum believing Mormons find ourselves in due to the requirements of the revelations is simply unhelpful. It avoids the central issues at the core of the problem.”

Here you are making an excuse not to use your own reasoning on what is homophobic and what is not. In your mind, the leaders’ words on LGBTQ+s are superior to anything else said about them. You can’t bring yourself to entertain the idea that the LDS church leaders are homophobic or that the new policy wasn’t actually the result of revelation but the product of knee-jerk homophobia, especially considering the fact that the new policy contradicts long-held LDS doctrines.

“Mormons aren’t going to change their views by being called homophobic.”

They have in the past. Since people don’t like being labeled homophobic, by acknowledging the full range of homophobia is, it is likely to reduce the level of homophobia in society. People are more likely to call out homophobia when they see it. People are more likely to be hesitant to engage in homophobic actions. I’m here calling out nonsensical homophobia denial.

“even if you might agree the label is problematic”

Wow. Is this some veiled attempt at declaring victory? Nice try. I never conceded that the term ‘homophobic’ is problematic. You’re the one who insisted on delving into semantics in order to dodge addressing a serious issue. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, but now I’m regretting having done that.

“More importantly I don’t know of any way we could know how many are. In which case we’re just making generalizations based upon people we’ve encountered which is hardly representative of the whole.”

You’re making excuses to dodge an important issue.

“I’m just deeply skeptical most Mormons wouldn’t empathize with the victims of the terrorist attack”

Straw man. No one here is saying that they are. The issue is LDS people being conflicted about sympathizing with LGBTQ+ victims to the same extent that they sympathize with other victims of mass shootings. Already we have evidence from this comment section that people are conflicted.

I can completely understand why the brethren feel like they have no choice given what has been revealed. Thus we need some sort of revelation to clarify what the Lord wants done. To simply label homophobic this huge conundrum believing Mormons find ourselves in due to the requirements of the revelations is simply unhelpful. It avoids the central issues at the core of the problem. Mormons aren’t going to change their views by being called homophobic. If anything it’ll simply cause a counter-reaction that makes more people focus on that rather than the real pain and struggles of members in the church. Effectively the status quo drives people out of the church from frustration with few options.

Brad I think what I find unhelpful about your approach is that you seem to assume most Mormon are in this category even if you might agree the label is problematic. I don’t think we know how many are. I think some are but I’m rather skeptical as many are as some suggest. More importantly I don’t know of any way we could know how many are. In which case we’re just making generalizations based upon people we’ve encountered which is hardly representative of the whole.

That said I do think given the issues it’s easy for people to make what you call discriminatory acts even if they might not think of it as such. It’s sometimes hard for Mormons to separate out “goodness” from say following the word of wisdom. That is, it’s hard for me to think drinking coffee makes someone evil – yet I’ve covenanted not to do it so I follow that covenant as best I can. But when you say something is wrong it’s hard for most people to instinctually think of all the nuances of the position. So drinking alcohol is sometimes treated bad the way stealing is bad. (Ignoring the hierarchy of goods most people instinctively latch onto) The same sort of thing undoubtedly happens with gay issues, perhaps made worse because of the place we justifiably give sexual sins.

All that said, and going back to the original post, I’m just deeply skeptical most Mormons wouldn’t empathize with the victims of the terrorist attack. And that’s regardless of their feelings on homosexuality.

Yes!

I would only add that arguing about the term “homophobic” is ridiculous given the situation. I know many LGBT adults who leave the LDS faith and are then free to fall in love with the person of their choosing and marry. My anecdotal evidence is that these people feel a great increase in satisfaction with their life. Their concern? Overwhelmingly the concern is LGBT teens because they are obligated to stay in the faith. Young people who see and feel their sexuality developing in a climate that tells them it is wrong.

Adults are free to leave the faith. Teens are often obligated to stay.

I don’t give two bits about whether you want to call Mormons “homophobic.” I care that there are young people who identify as LGBT and are mired in a climate that is so toxic to their identity.

(And yes I’m aware there are some LGBT Mormons who choose that belief system and are happy.)

Others on this post have acknowledged that ‘homophobic’ is a valid label, plus they are denying that Mormons are homophobic, which appears to be a common and valid criticism made by many. I’ve provided a basic definition (comment 40) of homophobia and they have yet to say whether that is valid or not. Yet their denialistic insistence that Mormons are typically not homophobic suggests that they disagree with my definition.

As for it being homophobic or not to disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds, even we are to grant that that is not homophobic, it is likely that people who frown on gay marriage and consider homosexuality a grievous sin are discriminatory towards gays in other areas and are more prone to psychologically abuse those who are gay, particularly family members. Also, just today, a report (http://kuer.org/post/youth-suicide-drives-down-utahs-child-health-ranking#stream/0) was published that shows that youth suicides in Utah have doubled since 2008. This is attributable to a number of factors, but the dogged non-acceptance of LGBTQ+s in the face of increasing acceptance for them outside Mormon society is no doubt a factor in this.

Clark, reading your clarification, I don’t really have any beef with your view. My issue is with those who are denying the prevalence of homophobia in Mormon culture outright.

This is the key issue. Liberals (I’ve no idea whether you are liberal — I’m making a broader point here) simply seem amazed to discover that people use these basic terms differently than they do. That is in public discussion there seems to be either disingenuous or radically ignorant understanding of terms others use. That you think your use is the predominant norm simply shows that you are judging the entire country in terms of your peer’s linguistic use. Not recognizing how quickly that use has shifted and being unaware that most of the country doesn’t share that use.