Why am I still a bigot?

[DavidFirth]

Not here. You are entitled to respect for no reason whatsoever until you forfeit it. It must be lost, not earned.

What you mean is that it must be pretentious here. Respect is earned, it is not given just because of a rule.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, you are missing something gigantic. This is not Noah's world. It's really different. Procreation isn't inherently a good thing anymore.
Ten thousand years ago procreation was crucial. Everyone lived in tiny communities that were always on the verge of extinction.
But that was then and this is now.

The Human Family is now in far more danger from irresponsible procreation than any lack of it. Lots of the primitive ethics of yore are simply not ethical today. "Be fruitful and multiply" has already been done, and then some. If we are ever to break the cycle of poverty and violence we absolutely need to stop breeding like flies. Non-breeding homosexuals are a start.
Tom

In many ways I agree with this post, but not entirely. Seems too off topic to go into here, but perhaps we could discuss some time? Interested in your opinion.

 

[columbus]

In many ways I agree with this post, but not entirely. Seems too off topic to go into here, but perhaps we could discuss some time? Interested in your opinion.

Sure.
I don't know what you are referring to though. Want to start a thread and tag me?
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're too smart to be making comments like that, and I'm too smart not to have picked up on the fact that you are being deliberately obtuse. This has absolutely nothing to do with how much effort the LDS Church has put into getting discriminatory laws passed against the LGBT community. The point I was making -- and I am 100% sure you didn't miss it -- was that it is entirely possible for a person to believe that certain behaviors are sinful and yet not have any negative feelings whatsoever towards people who engage in those behaviors. My example may have seemed like an exaggerated one, but the point is the valid nevertheless.

You listed off a few specifically Mormon positions, so I took the intent of your question as something like "if all I knew about someone was that they were Mormon, would I think that they hate gay people?"

Well, the answer is that I wouldn't assume that they necessarily hate gay people, but that since hatred of homosexuality seems to be something that's fairly mainstream in the Mormon community and is often supported by the LDS Church itself, I wouldn't assume that they don't.

Short version: I think that the belief system you described in your post allows for - and sometimes encourages - but does not require hatred of homosexual people.

There are a lot of things that I, as a practicing Mormon, don't do because I don't believe they are things God wants me to do. My moral choices are between me and God; everybody else's moral choices are between them and God (if they believe in God) or between them and their own consciences (if they don't). I know I am not unique in looking at sin in this way.

But this also isn't universal (Edit: if it was universal, "discipline" for matters of sin wouldn't be a thing at all). Your post described a "generic" Mormon (or at least that's how I took it); from my position as an outsider who has seen the impacts of your church, it seems that it embraces both people who hold your position and people who hold more hateful ones.

Well, Boyd K. Packer is probably one of my absolute least favorite LDS General Authorities who has ever lived, and I have disregarded his counsel on more occasions than I can count. Still, the quote you provided did not give much insight into the actual situation that prompted it. It did mention "protecting" oneself. A person need only protect himself by physical means if he is physically threatened. Despite the fact that I know my feelings towards gay people are pretty much opposite to his, I don't believe he was advocating physical violence towards anyone simply because that person was gay. 'Nuff said.

In the context of the quote, my interpretation is that he was talking about "protection" against being "recruited" into homosexuality, and I do think he was advocating physical violence against gay people... but more for being open about their homosexuality than just for being gay.

Fair enough. Some observant Mormons probably do hate gay people, but that's more because of the kind of individuals they are than it is a reflection of what their Church's leaders are advocating.

Would the observant Mormons who hate gay people share your view? Would your church leadership?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Katzpur

Here's the larger context for that Packer quote:

Now a warning! I am hesitant to even mention it, for it is not pleasant. It must be labeled as major transgression. But I will speak plainly. There are some circumstances in which young men may be tempted to handle one another, to have contact with one another physically in unusual ways. Latter-day Saint young men are not to do this.

Sometimes this begins in a moment of idle foolishness, when boys are just playing around. But it is not foolishness. It is remarkably dangerous. Such practices, however tempting, are perversion. When a young man is finding his way into manhood, such experiences can misdirect his normal desires and pervert him not only physically but emotionally and spiritually as well.

It was intended that we use this power only with our partner in marriage. I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.

There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.

While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.

After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, “I hit my companion.”

“Oh, is that all,” I said in great relief.

“But I floored him,” he said.

After learning a little more, my response was “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.”

I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.

To Young Men Only To Young Men Only

My interpretation based on the context of the quote is that Packer was praising the missionary for hitting someone who was "enticing him into immoral acts" (i.e. coming on to him, it seems) and when he says "you must protect yourself," he's talking about "protecting" yourself against acting on homosexual desire, which he describes as a "major transgression" and "remarkably dangerous."

According to Wikipedia, this pamphlet was published from 1980 to 2016, so many more people in the Church leadership and administration had a hand in spreading this message.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Report: North Carolina Church Importing Human Slaves From Brazil

At the height of the slave trade, the second-largest slave owner in the Caribbean was the Church of England.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can make all the judgements we want. Write them into law, and enforce them as we choose. But what we can't do, at least not honestly, is attribute our judgments to our "divine knowledge of good and evil". Yet, sadly, we humans do this all the time. And we have been paying a very dear price for this hubris throughout our time on Earth.

Anyone who believes in Original Sin can do just this. Original Sin and knowledge of good and evil "as God" were both effects of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Goid and Evil; they're tied together.

In the churches that teach Original Sin, denying that we have access to divine knowledge of good and evil is tantamount to denying that Original Sin exists, with the implication that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary.

 

[Katzpur]

@Katzpur

Here's the larger context for that Packer quote:


To Young Men Only To Young Men Only

My interpretation based on the context of the quote is that Packer was praising the missionary for hitting someone who was "enticing him into immoral acts" (i.e. coming on to him, it seems) and when he says "you must protect yourself," he's talking about "protecting" yourself against acting on homosexual desire, which he describes as a "major transgression" and "remarkably dangerous."

According to Wikipedia, this pamphlet was published from 1980 to 2016, so many more people in the Church leadership and administration had a hand in spreading this message.

Well, as I said, I've never been a huge fan of Packer's. Incidentally, he died in 2015. Publication of the pamphlet was discontinued the following year. Coincidence? I don't know. Still, I don't think his degree of animosity towards gays was really typical of most LDS leaders. He was next in line to become President of the Church after Thomas Monson (who is currently the President), so he obviously had a bit of clout.

 

[Katzpur]

Would the observant Mormons who hate gay people share your view? Would your church leadership?

Probably not. Most would probably advocate tolerance and civility. I advocate acceptance.

 

[PureX]

Anyone who believes in Original Sin can do just this. Original Sin and knowledge of good and evil "as God" were both effects of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Goid and Evil; they're tied together.

In the churches that teach Original Sin, denying that we have access to divine knowledge of good and evil is tantamount to denying that Original Sin exists, with the implication that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary.

Man's "original sin" was to presume unto himself the knowledge of good and evil, and therefor the right to judge all he encounters, accordingly. But mankind has never possessed this knowledge because mankind cannot steal from God what God has forbidden mankind to have. This is the lesson of the story of Eden.

Man's "original sin" is a lie that he has adopted as the truth: that he possesses the knowledge of good and evil, and can therefor judge all creation, including his fellow man, as if he were a god. But we cannot, because we are not God and we do not possess the knowledge of good and evil. So when we presume to pass judgment on all the world, we do so only according to our own self-centered needs, desires, and phony self-righteousness. And this is the fountainhead from which all mankind's other "sins" spring.

Again, this is the real lesson of the biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. The story is a religious myth, of course, but the lesson it conveys embodies significant wisdom and truth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I believe my God has asked us not to use tobacco, alcoholic beverages and tea or coffee, and that if I do so, I am sinning. If I were to tell you that I don't hate (or even slightly dislike) everyone in the world who uses tobacco, alcoholic beverages and tea or coffee, would you tend not to believe me? I certainly hope not!

I would believe you if you told me you didn't "hate" them... that's obviously extreme. However, based on those beliefs I probably would NOT believe you if you told me you didn't feel your behavior, and therefore, in many ways, your "self", were better than others who partake in those things. From my experience, the moment you think yourself "better" than someone else for, more or less, arbitrary reasons, they are going to take offense. I am not quite sure why this comes as such a shock to people - unless somehow I am the only one experiencing this facet of human nature.

Now, I don't like coffee. I despise the stuff, in fact. But this, in no way, makes me feel that my behavior of abstaining from coffee proves my behavior to be "better" in any way. Can you not see how that is entirely different than saying that you will gain favor or incur the wrath of some greater judge of character/behavior for drinking coffee? With a statement like that you are automatically singling out a thing that some person enjoys and implying that your abstaining from that behavior makes you somehow objectively "better." And it is "objective" by implication - your God is supposedly the one and only, and His views are supposedly above all others in the universe - the objective set of morally guiding "absolutes." Case in point, you and I are both in the presence of a third party who asks us if we want a cup of coffee. I say, "No thanks, I don't really like the taste.", and you say "No thanks, I believe it is a sin to drink coffee." How easy is it to see whose response is going to be received more congenially? Ridiculously easy, that's how easy, and for incredibly obvious reasons - you just made a judgment call to their face about an activity they enjoy, and probably didn't really see a problem with until YOU came along.

Now, I know that alcohol and tobacco use can hurt yourself or others, so there is some justification for chastisement there, depending on how/when/why/how-much-of the substances are used, and who is being hurt. But tea, or coffee? Homosexuality?

 

[Katzpur]

I would believe you if you told me you didn't "hate" them... that's obviously extreme. However, based on those beliefs I probably would NOT believe you if you told me you didn't feel your behavior, and therefore, in many ways, your "self", were better than others who partake in those things. From my experience, the moment you think yourself "better" than someone else for, more or less, arbitrary reasons, they are going to take offense. I am not quite sure why this comes as such a shock to people - unless somehow I am the only one experiencing this facet of human nature.

Well, I don't know what I can say to change your mind. I don't think I'm better than anybody else for any reason, and I certainly don't see myself as morally superior to the LGBT community. I see them as being marginalized and discriminated against, and I publicly support them every chance I get, even when members of my own church criticize me for doing so.

Now, I don't like coffee. I despise the stuff, in fact. But this, in no way, makes me feel that my behavior of abstaining from coffee proves my behavior to be "better" in any way. Can you not see how that is entirely different than saying that you will gain favor or incur the wrath of some greater judge of character/behavior for drinking coffee? With a statement like that you are automatically singling out a thing that some person enjoys and implying that your abstaining from that behavior makes you somehow objectively "better." And it is "objective" by implication - your God is supposedly the one and only, and His views are supposedly above all others in the universe - the objective set of morally guiding "absolutes." Case in point, you and I are both in the presence of a third party who asks us if we want a cup of coffee. I say, "No thanks, I don't really like the taste.", and you say "No thanks, I believe it is a sin to drink coffee." How easy is it to see whose response is going to be received more congenially? Ridiculously easy, that's how easy, and for incredibly obvious reasons - you just made a judgment call to their face about an activity they enjoy, and probably didn't really see a problem with until YOU came along.

Seriously? You think that's what I'd say? Obviously, you don't know me AT ALL. From everything you've said, it looks to me as if you're the one with the "I'm better than you" attitude.

 

[Curious George]

Well, I don't know what I can say to change your mind. I don't think I'm better than anybody else for any reason, and I certainly don't see myself as morally superior to the LGBT community. I see them as being marginalized and discriminated against, and I publicly support them every chance I get, even when members of my own church criticize me for doing so.

Seriously? You think that's what I'd say? Obviously, you don't know me AT ALL.

I think you're just enjoying judging me. Carry on.

I think your posts on here have made clear that if you had your way, the morman church would be more accepting and inclusive. You have also explained that you are not alone in this opinion.

I don't want to contend with that to which you do or do not feel moral superiority. I do not know. But, your posts like all of ours are available to read. My remembrence of them is a person wanting for more acceptance and inclusivity within a church (whether we are discussing race, sexuality, children, or marriage) and a person correcting mistaken beliefs regarding the morman religion.

If nothing else, cheers to that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I just wish people would stop seeking this 'happiness' that no-one ever really is.

I'm glad I didn't. I am very happy. Life is good. It's fun and interesting.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Also, many of the religious people I know are either unhappy, unhealthy, or both.

Yeah, I am devoted to God but I'm still physically and mentally off

If we are ever to break the cycle of poverty and violence we absolutely need to stop breeding like flies. Non-breeding homosexuals are a start.

Even nonhumans know not to breed if conditions aren't right. Humans are like "gotta birth 'em all".

But our foolish human egos didn't like the idea of being denied such God-like knowledge, and so it concocted the rationale that God was keeping this knowledge from us, and for Himself, to deny mankind it's rightful place in existence as God's eternal co-equals.

But it also turned out that God was less than honest. He tried to make it sound like eating the fruit would be like eating liquid metal, but actually He just didn't want to share. That reduced God's credibility, to be honest.

Christ is truth. Faith is simply belief in the truth.

But we know "there was more to be said, but it wouldn't fit all the books in the world" or something like that, so Christ can't be the whole truth, because we don't have it.

But mankind has never possessed this knowledge because mankind cannot steal from God what God has forbidden mankind to have.

It wasn't that forbidden if God planted the magic fruit in arm's reach, though. I think many people forget that myths all over the world have gods only being godly because of some sort of magical macguffin. Take those away and they become as mortal and powerless as everyone else. These people believed the fruit actually gave literal godhood. By God not willing to share with humans, He's basically admitting that's how He got HIS powers, right?

 

[PureX]

But it also turned out that God was less than honest. He tried to make it sound like eating the fruit would be like eating liquid metal, but actually He just didn't want to share.

It turned out that "eating the fruit" WAS like "eating liquid metal" for we humans. And we have been suffering the consequences ever since. Some divine knowledge is poisonous to humanity, which is why it has been forbidden to us. But in the case of the knowledge of good and evil, we presumed it unto ourselves, anyway, and we have been killing each other and destroying our world over it ever since.

It wasn't that forbidden if God planted the magic fruit in arm's reach, though. I think many people forget that myths all over the world have gods only being godly because of some sort of magical macguffin. Take those away and they become as mortal and powerless as everyone else. These people believed the fruit actually gave literal godhood. By God not willing to share with humans, He's basically admitting that's how He got HIS powers, right?

Why are you working so hard at trying to discredit a mythical depiction of God? It's just an allegorical story, being told using the artifice of symbolism. There was no actual garden, or tree, or fruit, or Adam and Eve. The events depicted never actually happened. It's a story that has been designed to illuminate a philosophical point of view about the nature of humanity and human behavior. Debating the artifice of the story does not address the philosophical point of view that the story is conveying. It's just a silly waste of time, and a disitraction from the point.

 

[JustWondering]

I think homosexuality is a sin. Nothing will change that. You may say Paul was just saying lustful gays are sinning, but it can also mean it's the same as lust.

However, I don't think it's a reason to discriminate. On an individual basis like housing, jobs, and services. Events are a different matter.

I simply don't hate and call for cooperation. Why am I still a bigot? Are you just trying to feel superior?

Since your god is soooooo hung up on sex, why didn't he just make us asexual and capable of reproducing without having sex at all? It occurs to me that everything god hates so much could have been avoided if it had done things differently. Your god thinks pigs are filthy creatures, so why did god create pigs to be filthy creatures? I don't remember any bible stories for how it's pigs fault and not gods that their unclean. The biblical god comes off as a psychotic bumbler to me. Why would anyone worship that?

 

[SinSaber]

Gay aspiring Jew here. You don't sound like a bigot. You think it's a sin, but you don't think gays should be discriminated against in housing or jobs? Then guess what? That's perfectly fine.

Frankly, what others personally think of me really is of no importance. As long as the collective "you" don't try to make being gay illegal again or take away legal protections, then I don't care what people believe about my sexuality.

Let me live my life with no interruptions. You should also be given the same.

Thank you. I personally feel it's odd your opinion was completely overlooked.

I don't have any problems with your beliefs, primarily because they most likely stem from fear. I recall a passage in the bible which states that God will punish those who condone the practices of homosexuals. Since the Judeo-Christian god is very real to you, I can see how, out of fear, you would continue to see homosexuality as a sin. I can see this, and would not necessarily consider you to be a bigot, after all, there are many religious folks who have a much more hateful view of the LGBTQ community than you do. Someone whom I would categorize as a bigot would be an atheist who is in favor of discrimination against homosexuals (although few exist). Such a person would be a bigot more so than yourself because he would have no fear-based reason to discriminate against homosexuals.

No, it comes from my belief that man is God's gift to women and vice versa. Anything else is like asking for the receipt.

That's why you're a bigot.
"Nothing will change that". You don't believe in rational thought or doing the best thing for the Human Family.

You just have a thought. And your religion teaches you to avoid thinking. "Let some bronze age goat herders do the thinking for you. They are just as bigoted as you are, and they claim that God spoke to them personally.
As opposed to all the other people who claim that God spoke to them. You have no problem dismissing God when He speaks to people who you don't agree with.
Tom

Actually the Bible instructs us to study and ask questions so that we may be prepared with it's knowledge. Personally I think your the one telling me not to think cause you don't trust my judgement or ability reason.

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that own a small business, and you were looking for new employee to join your staff, and you found out one person in interview was gay, would you still consider employing him?

And if you had already employed someone, who have worked professionally and productively, but found out 5 years later he was gay, would your view of him changed? Would you fire him?

If you "no" to 1st scenario and "yes" in the 2nd scenario, then most likely, you are biased against gay people.

If you have a friend who is gay or lesbian, but only just found out about it, would you treat him or her differently before finding out? Or would it not matter at all?

Pretty sure I answered that in the original quote.

Since your god is soooooo hung up on sex, why didn't he just make us asexual and capable of reproducing without having sex at all? It occurs to me that everything god hates so much could have been avoided if it had done things differently. Your god thinks pigs are filthy creatures, so why did god create pigs to be filthy creatures? I don't remember any bible stories for how it's pigs fault and not gods that their unclean. The biblical god comes off as a psychotic bumbler to me. Why would anyone worship that?

Well, your entire post is a question to why anyone would be an atheist. Your cynical and have a predisposition to force your ego on others.

 

[JustWondering]

Well, your entire post is a question to why anyone would be an atheist. Your cynical and have a predisposition to force your ego on others.

No, my post was a question to why anyone would believe in such a god concept as yours, provided they actually put some thought into all the contradictory and disproven claims the bible makes.

I also find it humorously ironic that some Christians consider spreading their religion a duty but then act offended if they encounter someone spreading a different belief. As if their the only ones allowed to do that and others aren't allowed their own opinions on things.

 

[InChrist]

The bible was once, still is in some cases, used as an advocacy for slavery.

Many have misused the Bible for their own personal gain, power, and control over others, that does not mean they were using it correctly. William Wilberforce and others have used the Bible for the abolition of slavery.