"We don't say that person is gay..." - I'm furious about labeling

[Not Buying It]

So President Oaks spoke at Blackfoot West Stake Center in Idaho this past Saturday (see https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/ ... 4193f.html), and as part of the meeting there was a panel:

After Oaks spoke, there was a panel led by Elder Kevin Hathaway and Sister Becky Craven.

They answered prepared questions and touched on subjects including pornography, heavy cell phone use by their children as well as talk about gay and transgender people.

“I just wanted to add a few comments on gender and gender identification,” Hathaway said. “While we recognize what LGBT means, we do not use those labels when we talk about people. We don’t say, for example, that person is gay. We say that person struggles with same gender attraction.”

Hathaway continued, "Why is that even important? It’s important because whenever we place a label or allow a label to be placed upon us. Then we also – a lot of times – by default, accept the lifestyle that comes with that.”

I'm sorry, but I really take issue with this. As a matter of fact, I am pretty furious about it. It de-legitimizes and minimizes the experiences of our LGBT brothers and sisters, placing who they are -framing their very existence - in the context of a "struggle". Supremely ironic coming from an organization that throws hissy fits about "victories for Satan" if someone uses the wrong label to describe it.

I'll tell you what - while I recognize what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints means, I do not use that label when I talk about the organization. I don't say, for example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I say That Damn Mormon Boondoggle.

[Red Ryder]

Hathaway continued, "Why is that even important? It’s important because whenever we place a label or allow a label to be placed upon us. Then we also – a lot of times – by default, accept the lifestyle that comes with that.”

So what lifestyle differences are there between gay and “same gender attraction”?

Gay = butt sex, anal fissures, demoralization, fabulous fashion, parades, then depression before death by suicide?

Same gender attraction = Mario Lopez poster on the bedroom wall, early morning seminary, scripture reading, and mission prep classes, followed by heterosexual marriage in the temple and a lifelong secret crush on Mario Lopez, Brad Pitt, and Elder Uchtdorf?

Makes sense to me Sister Becky “Bitch Face” Craven! Labels are for losers.

[wtfluff]

Supremely ironic coming from an organization that throws hissy fits about "victories for Satan" if someone uses the wrong label to describe it.

I'll tell you what - while I recognize what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints means, I do not use that label when I talk about the organization. I don't say, for example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I say That Damn Mormon Boondoggle.

Exactly! If "the church" can't recognize people for "labels" they prefer, then the has church no right whatsoever to request that people use the correct "label" when referring to mormons and mormonism. The hypocrisy so so palpable that it's not even funny; Yet most believing/practicing mormons are completely incapable of seeing it.

While we're at it: No-one should ever refer to Elder Kevin F. Hathaway as "Elder" Hathaway either. Let's also get rid of: Sister, Brother, Bishop, President, Apostle, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and any other label that the church endorses.


Funny enough: Most all of the labels that the church "endorses" are designed to do one thing: Remove identity, and basically turn all of the followers into clones of each other. It's one of the major tactics that CULTs use on their victims, and the church literally preaches it over the pulpit.

#yestitsaCULT

[blazerb]

I have a few gay friends. I don't know that any of them struggle with the attraction. They struggle with bigots treating them badly.

[Journey]

I was going to say, it seems that the speaker "struggles" with labels and not the people he was referring to.

I have a few gay friends. I don't know that any of them struggle with the attraction. They struggle with bigots treating them badly.

[Newme]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider my sexual preference as core to my sense of identity. Upon meeting someone, I don’t say, “Hi, I’m a heterosexual.”

Each person is far to complex to slap a label, and most would consider it demeaning to label them by something that is considered a dis-order (against the natural order of things). How strange to have a parade for people with far-sighted or near-sided disorder. I understand that many people who have homosexual preferences have suffered bullying. I stood up for one in junior high. So, I can see why some may feel a sense of healing to not feel such shame... yet pride is taking it too far. Let’s say a guy’s entire self-esteem is based on his lgbtq status and then, as many do, he decides to go heterosexual. He just lost his sense of self esteem, because it was based on a group, not on the complexity of who he is - who we all are - a work in progress.

So we each have our own dis-orders, among many other unique aspects...
Influential Components of a Person:
1) Age/development
2) Sex (male or female)
3) Opportunity/Finances/Resources/Career
4) Health (body systems: endocrine, digestive, cardiovascular etc) Genetic inheritance, Lifestyle
5) Talents/Types of Intelligence: Interpersonal, self-awareness/intrapersonal, logical/math, kinesthetic, etc.
6) Experiences + or -
7) Personal development, work ethic, thinking patterns, positive disintegration, conscience, Goals
8) Temperament: Activity, Adaptability, Persistence, Regularity, Sensitivity
9) Personality (ie Carl Jung/Myer & Briggs: E/I, N/S, T/F, P/J)
10) Un/Subconscious: personal shadow, collective unconscious archetypes
11) Social: relationships, birth order, family dynamics, life traps
12) Spiritual: religious beliefs, faith stages

How shallow to focus on just one and ignore the rest.

Labels tend to provoke cult/herd mentality which has historically often led to war. Diogenes wisely avoided labels in favor of seeing the humanity in each... “I am not a citizen of Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world.” (OTOH... please don’t think I am in support of a one world government... my point is the need to acknowledge the similarities and uniqueness inherent in being human.)

Btw, If you disagree, fine, but please avoid ad hominem logical fallacy labels like, “homophobe, hater, & bigot” and stick to exactly with what you disagree and why.

[wtfluff]

Btw, If you disagree, fine, but please avoid ad hominem logical fallacy labels like, “homophobe, hater, & bigot” and stick to exactly with what you disagree and why.

I'm sorry Newme, but this thread had NOTHING to do with actual sexuality, It looks like it is only you who is trying to turn the conversation to be about homosexuality being a "dis-order."

And there are a bunch of things I want to type about my "disagreement" with the rest of your post, but I'll shut my fingers off to try and stay on topic.

[deacon blues]

Mormon leaders want to others to honor their labels, but they don’t want to honor others labels. Isn’t that hypothetical?

[Hermey]

I say That Damn Mormon Boondoggle.

I like to shorten that just a little... “That f**cking cult.”

[DPRoberts]

Mormon leaders want to others to honor their labels, but they don’t want to honor others labels. Isn’t that hypothetical?

Looks like the auto-correct gremlins got you there, Deacon. I think the word you wanted was "hypocritical".

[deacon blues]

Touche

[Newme]

Btw, If you disagree, fine, but please avoid ad hominem logical fallacy labels like, “homophobe, hater, & bigot” and stick to exactly with what you disagree and why.

I'm sorry Newme, but this thread had NOTHING to do with actual sexuality, It looks like it is only you who is trying to turn the conversation to be about homosexuality being a "dis-order."

And there are a bunch of things I want to type about my "disagreement" with the rest of your post, but I'll shut my fingers off to try and stay on topic.

Actually the topic title itself discusses sexuality and labels - both of which I addressed.

[Not Buying It]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider my sexual preference as core to my sense of identity. Upon meeting someone, I don’t say, “Hi, I’m a heterosexual.”

Well, but it kind of is core to your sense of identity. I mean, sure, there are plenty of other aspects of a person’s identity, some of them pretty important, but I’d say sexual orientation is a pretty big one. When looking for a romantic relationship, it’s not like you went “Guy, girl, whatever, my sexual preference isn’t core to my sense of identity so it doesn’t really matter”.

Just because you don’t immediately identify yourself as heterosexual doesn’t mean it isn’t a pretty important, core component of your identity. Heterosexuals have the luxury of thinking it isn’t because we live in such a hetero-dominated society, much like whites think being white isn’t such a big deal because they’ve never lived in a world that wasn’t white-dominated. It is core, it doesn’t register with heterosexuals as much because society is structured in ways such that they don’t have to think about it.

And besides, it is rude to ignore the labels groups assign themselves. The Church is all “we’ll pitch a fit if you call us Mormon, but we get to call you ‘struggling with same sex attraction people’”. It is arrogant, presumptuous, demeaning, and hostile for the Church to think they can assign their own labels to the LGBTQ+ community.

[Newme]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider my sexual preference as core to my sense of identity. Upon meeting someone, I don’t say, “Hi, I’m a heterosexual.”

Well, but it kind of is core to your sense of identity. I mean, sure, there are plenty of other aspects of a person’s identity, some of them pretty important, but I’d say sexual orientation is a pretty big one. When looking for a romantic relationship, it’s not like you went “Guy, girl, whatever, my sexual preference isn’t core to my sense of identity so it doesn’t really matter”.

Just because you don’t immediately identify yourself as heterosexual doesn’t mean it isn’t a pretty important, core component of your identity. Heterosexuals have the luxury of thinking it isn’t because we live in such a hetero-dominated society, much like whites think being white isn’t such a big deal because they’ve never lived in a world that wasn’t white-dominated. It is core, it doesn’t register with heterosexuals as much because society is structured in ways such that they don’t have to think about it.

And besides, it is rude to ignore the labels groups assign themselves. The Church is all “we’ll pitch a fit if you call us Mormon, but we get to call you ‘struggling with same sex attraction people’”. It is arrogant, presumptuous, demeaning, and hostile for the Church to think they can assign their own labels to the LGBTQ+ community.

You make a good point about their hypocrisy. Nelson’s pack has decided to make “Mormon” a bad word and has ridiculously insisted on trying to APPEAR more Christian - despite so many of their teachings being contrary to Christ’s teachings. Then they don’t respect a similar label request from others. Both seem to be cases like “The Emperor's New Clothes.”

Call me a rebel, but I don’t care what labels people want. Such group labels divide us, take away from individuality and cause conflict. So again, as far as labels, human being is about the extent I think is ideal.

Still, I recognize the hypocrisy in the OP quote.

[2bizE]

I suspect Mr. Oak’s death at some point in the future will be highly celebrated, similar to BKP.

[Red Ryder]

I suspect Mr. Oak’s death at some point in the future will be highly celebrated, similar to BKP.

Who?

[Hagoth]

Funny enough: Most all of the labels that the church "endorses" are designed to do one thing: Remove identity, and basically turn all of the followers into clones of each other. It's one of the major tactics that CULTs use on their victims, and the church literally preaches it over the pulpit.

And the rest of the labels are to establish authoritarian hierarchy.

[Hagoth]

How strange to have a parade for people with far-sighted or near-sided disorder.

But you might feel differently if near-sighted people were specifically and systematically being excluded from things like church membership, marriage, having cakes baked for them, and regularly beaten up merely for being near-sighted.

[2bizE]

Do you think Dallin Oaks controls all of the thought and discussion points around the gays for all of the GAs? I wouldn’t be surprised if their discussions are all scripted and they have stay within the gay boundaries that Oaks has circumscribed.

[Red Ryder]

Do you think Dallin Oaks controls all of the thought and discussion points around the gays for all of the GAs? I wouldn’t be surprised if their discussions are all scripted and they have stay within the gay boundaries that Oaks has circumscribed.

Publicly yes. Privately no.

Someday one of the current 12 will ascend to the throne and make a change using the RMN script outlined by Wendy and her silly stories of revelation.