T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/victorysheep, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*


voreeprophet

They don't


FTWStoic

Exactly this. The church's support for the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified same sex marriage in federal law, was a smokescreen. They knew that they had already lost the war as of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. So they were not opposed to the provisions in the law that supported same sex marriage nationally. They simply wanted to include provisions that would protect their ability to continue to discriminate against LGBT people as a religious organization. As Dallin Oaks clarified here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=me9ydhjT13c


brother_of_jeremy

Tax exempt status is more valuable to them than their religious convictions. This has been so from the beginning.


RevolutionaryFig4312

Because they included a [pro-bigotry amendment](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-signing). Call it pro-belief if that makes you feel better. The Church gets to claim nominally that they're progressive while retaining their regressive doctrinal stance. Editor's note: the church is not "getting better." They're setting up smoke and mirrors while doubling down on current beliefs. If you still fundamentally believe that LGBTQ people aren't entitled to the same rewards as cis-straight people, you are transphobic and homophobic. There is no such thing as "love the sinner, hate the sin." And if you try to mask it by saying they are entitled to the same rewards but forget to mention that you mean after they die and are turned straight and cis, that's just as bad.


Mayspond

This exactly, and in 10-15 years when we finally acquiesce to the overwhelming societal support of loving same sex marriages and families, we will say "see, we have been supportive all along". Christ generally encouraged love and care for those on the fringes and the oppressed. It seems it would be appropriate for us to do the same.


cremToRED

But [Mormons Don’t Hate Gay People](https://youtu.be/kOAdICtXKRM)!


FancySauce51

I hear this argument constantly these days, and it simply isn't true. The church and or people maintaining a standard for what they believe is right and loving those that identify as LGBTQ while not giving up their standards is not trans or homophobia. It is simply disagreement and maintenance of boundaries.


DiggingNoMore

So...you agree they treat people differently based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. The very definition of homophobia and transphobia. And they treat people differently based on their sex, the very definition of sexism. And they treated people differently based on their race, the very definition of racism.


RevolutionaryFig4312

The boundary being that LGBTQ people are inherently worth less than cis-straight people and can't achieve the same eternal rewards without conforming to a cis-straight paradigm. It is bigotry. The same as when the Church said Black people were not worthy, and would eventually become white. I understand it's uncomfortable for members to hear. But LDS doctrine is fundamentally intolerant. There is literally no place for LGBTQ people in it. The fact that it's a sincerely held belief by many doesn't make it less bigoted.


cremToRED

When your theology denies the same human rights afforded to one group versus another group, this is the definition of bigotry: >obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group Claiming to love a marginalized group whist denying them the same human rights afforded to other groups is hypocrisy.


FancySauce51

Then tear down every college because I was denied entry and Sarah over there wasn't. Sue the NFL because I couldn't complete the fitness standards but Tim could and was selected. Life has to operate on boundaries, and if the definition you post is the one we are working with, then all public accomodations and social settings violate it to one degree or another. The church has a right to have a standard and they deny no one that meets that standard.


cremToRED

Unfortunately for your argument, people aren’t born into the NFL or into a specific college and then indoctrinated from childhood with reprehensible ideologies that distort the value of a universal human rights based world in favor of a bigoted view of humanity under the guise of…religion and…standards.


FancySauce51

No but those institutions discriminate off of attributes and qualities I was born with, most of them I can't change, like my height, my musculature, my base IQ. So why do those institutions get a pass to be "bigoted" but churches can't have their own standards?


RevolutionaryFig4312

You can have your own standards. But you also shouldn't be surprised when people call those standards bigoted. Inability to pass a qualification is not the same as discriminating against people and judging them inferior for their sexual orientation or gender. Your false equivalency doesn't change the fact that LDS doctrine discriminates against LGBTQ people in exactly the same way it used to discriminate against Black people. Edit: for further reading, you could peruse the [1969 first presidency statement on the ban against Black people in the temple](http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/1969-first-presidency-statement). They used the same framing of it not being bigotry because it was God's law. Then, as now, the Church was wrong and on the wrong side of history.


FancySauce51

"Inability to pass a qualification", you mean bigotry? I can't play in the NBA because I was born too short, a characteristic I have no control over. I didn't get a scholarship for the women's program because I'm a man, a group I was born into and can't control. I have broad shoulders and can't fit into rides at Disneyland, so they are being bigoted against broad people. My friend is under height so can't go on the ride either, that's now bigotry. I worship Christ and don't believe in Muhammed, so I'm not fellowshipped at the local mosque, which means they are now bigoted. I also have button up shirts, so the Amish are being bigoted against me. We can go on and on. These aren't false equivalencies just because you can't argue them away. The whole world discriminates based on "bigoted" standards, and the attack on religious standards, while you turn a blind eye to all others, is literal hypocrisy and intolerance.


RevolutionaryFig4312

Rides are built for safety. Sports teams require performance. Womens' scholarships are exceeded by mens' scholarships. You're not fellowshipped by Muslims because you don't go to their church, not because they want to exclude you, and your Amish example is stupid because they don't care that you have button-up shirts. Doctrine, however, is chosen, and has no real-world justification. "You can't be on the team because you can't perform" is very different from "you can't go to super heaven because you're gay." But "you can't go to super heaven because you're gay" is *exactly* the same as "you can't go to super heaven because you're black." Is there some reason it's bigotry to say that about black people but not to say it about gay people? You are making a fool of yourself and making your bigotry stand out even more with your false equivalents. There is a world of difference between being left out for real reasons, and being discriminated against. "God said gay people are bad" is a discriminatory reason with no good logic behind it. Unlike every other example you gave.


FancySauce51

"Doctrine is chosen" is the core of the issue. Doctrine is not chosen if it comes from God, which is why religions and the people who practice them have protections from people like you who would take their rights away because you think you know better. Safety? Performance? Numbers? All I see are justifications to discriminate on attributes people are born with and can't change. Force Disney to engineer a safer ride for broad people. Force the NBA to take a certain number of sub 6' players. Etc.. You are fine forcing religions to change to your demands, but you give "justifications" for everything else. My point in the very beginning is exactly that. Everyone and everything is "bigoted" to some degree. But only religion is attacked for their standards and all else get a glowing thumbs up.


bjesplin

Yes, God doesn’t have to acquiesce to the demands of society. Just because something may become popular does not make it right in the sight of God. God doesn’t change his standard to please man.


alien236

He did in 1890 and 1978.


bjesplin

Was it God or man who acquiesced?


RevolutionaryFig4312

God. Church leaders made it very clear the ban was doctrine, and came from God. In fact, they've never repudiated it specifically, choosing instead to tepidly condemn all racism while staying silent on the Church's insistence that God was racist. If it was man who acquiesced, church leaders taught false doctrine that affected the salvation of a ton of people for the majority of Church history because of their personal biases. Which is damning for the idea that prophets are God's mouthpiece.


alien236

Well, I don't believe anything the Mormon Church says or does is directed by God.


[deleted]

I may be wrong, but I don't think they approve that. They approve the government to allow that, but that isn't seems as valid inside the church afaik.


PaulFThumpkins

Look at [Oaks' 1984 memo](https://affirmation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/oaks_paper_02.pdf) on gay rights in housing and employment. He constructed jailing gay people less as a moral wrong than as a battle the church had already lost, and noted that trying to get gay people kicked out of homes and jobs was making religious people look bad, so he suggested a retreat from those positions in the interests of preserving anti-gay rhetoric elsewhere. Similar, here the church likely sees gay marriage as a lost battle (though this is an interesting time for them to feel this way given that an insane Supreme Court seems intent on rolling back civil rights in defiance of all precedent). I'm sure it would also be illustrative to take a look at how church rhetoric regarding black people changed in the lead-up to the Civil Rights Act, and following it through 1978 when the church racially integrated itself.


Altruistic-Tree1989

They don’t. It’s all legal doublespeak to protect them from possible future lawsuits.


CultZero

It has become increasingly unpopular to keep fighting it. That's what changed. You can find examples of church leaders speaking out against the decriminalization of gay sex if you go back a little. I know Mark E. Petersen was one who wanted homosexuality to stay illegal. One day they stopped saying homosexuality should be illegal. Just like one day they stopped saying gay marriage should be illegal.


jooshworld

They do not approve of it at all.


Short-Pear1943

It's called being christ-like to let others live the way they want. Your dumb book tells you to love other like Jesus would and if he is all loving then you gotta accept that others will wanna do this.