Triumph of the Subjective

From my personal perspective, it has become progressively more obvious to me.  Experience spells it out plainly now.

To me there is every appearance that philosophical dependence on subjectivity dominates in the moral relativism of an "alternative lifestyle" culture.  Starting from the basis of "If it feels good, do it", and progressing toward the victimization posturing accusation, "You make me feel bad", subjectivity has become the leading value in this vociferous segment of our culture.

There is a sea-change in the general attitude reflected in the philosophy of a vocal minority of our culture.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks expresses concern about this trend.

It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong—that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God.  (Dallin H. Oaks, "Balancing Truth and Tolerance").

One of the instances I see as an example is coining politically-correct terms like "gay" and "homophobe".

Ironically, in popular usage, both terms are employed to characterize the opposite of the traditional.  There is good reason for this, and to devious thinking it makes perfect sense.

Of course "gay" no longer means "being cheerful".  In fact the prospect for "gay" seems quite dismal.  Those who characterize themselves as "gay" generally seem anything but.  Today no one not wishing to self-identify with homosexual tendencies would ever even consider referring to themselves as "gay".  The "gay" public persona most often seems be an expression of unhappiness, a protest or demonstration of some sort.

Technically, the term "homophobe" is a portmanteau, the Latin roots of which would seem to denote "man" and "fear".  In actual usage it seems to have little connection with any perception of fear itself, and more to do with the accusation of discrimination based on prejudice.

The object of such protests generally seems to be an effort to transfer the blame for unhappiness onto somebody else.  This does not seem to be a culture that assumes personal responsibility for their own satisfaction with life.

The obvious intent is to claim the moral high ground.  Ironically, if we "hate the haters", we feel justified, we feel good.   And nothing is wrong if it feels good.

That such rationale seems quite inconsistent with moral relativism is apparently not a consideration. Though it escapes me why the "haters" somehow are accorded less claim to the validity of their own "hateful" feelings.

If I were assigning semantic significance, I would more often attribute such feelings to women.   Many contemporary women, as they publicly project, are fearful of men.  Their daily interaction reflects fearful and neurotic thinking.  How many men purchase products so associated with an aggressive posture of fear, like personal mace and tasers?

For public police officers these tools are available to subdue aggressive criminals.  To women, these are defense against rapists and muggers who would prey on the weak and vulnerable - and fearful.

In short I think it is women, rather than men, who tend to be "homophobes".  They use their own posture of fear as justification for legalistic schemes to protect themselves, based wholly on feeling "threatened".

I do not doubt that some women feel threatened or insecure.  But total subjectivity is not an effective basis for establishing civil laws.

Bananna Bread and Current Affairs

I am so concerned about the confused world we live in.

What does it mean?

Is there black and white?

I am thinking now about teaching my sons, but I fear greatly that the power of the destroyer reigns openly now and is winning on so many fronts, it causes me great fear.

One issue that brought my fear to the front so dramatically was an article in Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune. (A copy of it online).

The article stated that two gay men advocating same-sex marriage were baking some banana bread to distribute, by no coincidence, in the district of Utah Senator Chris Buttars. Senator Buttars has a rather poor public image, to put it mildly.

I have a different view. Turns out, Buttars is bishop of an LDS ward, and my one of my son's wife used to be in his ward in West Jordan. Now on with the news story.

The homosexual advocates staged a visit to Buttars' home and feigned astonishment that he willingly accepted their embassy, and actually even appeared to be listening to them while they pleaded their message.

This was the essence of the article.

To the unaware or uninitiated, there were many things here that were not apparent, and would lead to gross misunderstanding. On that basis, I was so offended that I nearly went into shock, literally. I got out of my rehab bed at the hospital to denounce the article to my room mate. Bob was more sensible and less emotional, but he was also outraged and visibly upset.

First problem is casting Buttars as a bad man, a homophobe, and bigot. Because of my church affiliation and loyalty, and life-long practical experience in such matters, I know without asking that Buttars meets the highest moral and social standards, and is an honorable man in whom I could trust.

Something is wrong here. Whose judgement of morality is the more reliable?

Should I believe the sensibilities of a news editor and some social advocates with an axe to grind, or men who I know are serving the Church of the Living God?

For me, this is no choice at all, but I recognize that this kind of background information is totally missing for most readers of the news article. To them, Buttars is a firmly entrenched homophobe whose Archie-Bunker like heart is melted by kindness and gay love and banana bread.

So it teaches us that gay lovers really know what love is after all, and we are just cold hearted and mean- spirited to say our church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes same-sex marriage.

The position staked out in the newspaper article by the gay advocates is laughable, to any who know the job a Mormon bishop fills.

Bishops are primarily a sort of social counsellor to their congregation, thus they serve first and foremost as a sympathetic listener to the troubled. To any and all who are troubled or afflicted in any way, they can knock on the bishops' door, day or night, and at the very least, unburden their soul to an active and sympathetic listener. The Bishop does more than just listen. He often pays bills for the indigent, soothes the troubled soul of the abused or depressed, gives referrals for professional counselling, provides food or clothing or financial assistance for the naked or hungry or cold, or perhaps just a shoulder to cry on or an ear to share glad tidings when there is no one else. How ironic that these two men come bringing symbols that represent the very essence of what no being on earth could possibly understand better than a man like bishop Buttars. And according to the SLTrib columnist, they feign surprise that he listens to them!

[I am not half done with the issue yet, but I'm much too tired to continue and do any justice to th subject, I thought it would be a idle time in my life, and I can hardly get a word in edge wise, More to come,,,]

THOUGHT occurred to me last night that some might mistakenly think I am attempting to defend bishop Buttars. Or represent his position better than the SLTrib editors and columnists can do. I am not. I am just making my voice heard, for what it is worth, because I think there is a problem with the way the story is being told now, from both sides of the aisle.

I don't know the banana bread makers, nor the SLTrib people, nor Chris Buttars, nor any of the countless others involved in this melee of misunderstanding. I just want the big wheel to stop on a number that is a winning number, that pays off for all. I believe the world was designed very purposefully and carefully to afford us all the opportunity to find our own kind of happiness, if we just take the right opportunities as they come along. We get subtle guidance to help our choices, so we aren't completely alone all the time.

Anyway, more about the news article and the bishop.

Continuing discussion about "gay"

In another blog I was pursuing comments about "gay bashing". This discussion focused specifically on the concern as it relates to Mormons. Excerpting my comments, interspersed with fragments of replies from other participants...

After decades of hearing the term “gay”, I’m still not sure what it really means. Based on the usage in this group, to me it seems like not a very meaningful label at all. So it seems even less meaningful to consider exactly what is meant by “gay bashing”.

I assume people who identify themselves as “gay” must have something in common, but I question whether this group is as monolithic, unique, and unequivocal as we might be led to believe. And I doubt even more that everyone who ever engaged in some kind of homosexual behaviour considers themself to be “gay”.

I have further doubts about how significant I should consider “gay” as a group. I’d like to know the demographics — for real. Who and what are you talking about, and how many are there? Are they like Republicans or Democrats? If I devoted any intellectual energy to such questions, I think it would take a lot more real information before I would even venture to formulate tentative answers.

Perhaps for the sake of discussion about “gay bashing” in the Church, that response should suffice. I cannot very well be “bashing” if I don’t even know who to “bash” — can I?

Apparently the perception of some is that “gay” has some kind of association with a “political agenda”.

I’m willing to use that assertion provisionally for the sake of the question about “gay bashing”.

If I am opposing political activism to promote a “gay agenda”, does that constitute “gay bashing”? Because it seems to me that the Church is currently involved in a formal campaign to oppose the legalization or normalization of same-sex “marriage”. If I support the Church in that cause, am I “gay bashing”?

What if I choose to go even further, on my own. Suppose I said I was rooting for Utah Senator Chris Buttars in his legislative efforts to oppose the “gay agenda”. Or, say I support the Eagle Forum in their political lobbying and public information campaign efforts. Is that “gay bashing”?

…it’s easy to assume that “in the good ol’ days,” society monolithically embraced the ideas taught by current conservative religious groups.

Ah, but how much easier for those who favor popular trends to filter thier own views of social norms.

The difference is that values and views which are manifestly so plastic and variable are simply reflections of social and cultural invention and evolution, while absolute values are derivative from the commands of God. The former are mutable and ephemeral; the latter are absolute and eternal.

We’d better be able to tell the difference.

We seem perfectly willing to excuse Moses for a misogynist attitude when delivering the Ten Commandments, but cannot consider that latter-day prophets might be similarly biased.

You confuse the message with the messenger — a common mistake.

Moses did not invent the foundational rules upon which the Ten Commandments are based. Even stipulating your politically-correct assumptions does not change that fact.

In the case of the Decalogue, I thought the LDS church had moved beyond treating women as property.

I am not quite sure how you could think that the Church “moved” beyond something that never seemed to be an issue. Did the Church merge with NOW while I wasn’t looking?

As far as Moses and his culture, I’ll let him speak to that question. I personally believe my own views on such historic matters represent the agnostic position. But next time I get to speak with Moses and Aaron, I’ll be sure to get the word on their treatment of women.

Can the Church likewise transcend the anti-gay message foundational to the Restoration? I don’t know, it may be that animosity toward homosexuality is too deeply rooted.

I am not sure the Church has any interest in “transcending” fundamental values that are based on the commandments of God. When God speaks further on the matter, through his servants, the prophets, I for one will be listening. I suppose whether or not discussions on this blog or other media make any difference in the meantime is an open question.

I am still considering the original post, and asking myself what the question is really supposed to address.

I have never asked anyone at Church if they consider themselves “gay”. Not as if anyone wears a badge or a tattoo on their forehead. We don’t share a ward list with each other that elaborates each of our sexual behaviors.

Why should I know or care?

Apparently it was a big enough issue for the church to make related changes to the temple endowment ritual.

An interesting spin, but I am not aware of any Church-published rationale for temple changes, nor do I see a basis for inventing one.

The idea should be easy enough to substantiate. A relevant quote from one of the General Authorities would suffice.

Apparently, gay-bashing we deplore, but open season on Moses and his benighted culture.

What is an appropriate moral paradigm for the homosexual?

Chastity.

Perhaps the reason God doesn’t stop making gay people is to give us all an opportunity to learn to love those who are different, who live on the margins of society.

Perhaps. But I see no compelling reason to attribute to God such motivation, particularly not with a specific attitude toward the the existence of “gay people”. Every person faces the challenge of “love thy neighbor”.

…must seek to see the good in the lesbian couple down the street with the two kids. We must care about the inactive LDS man who “flaunts” his sexuality by being “openly gay.”

You identify an issue that sits somewhere on my list of things to work on. I confess my priorities are generally assigned to other concerns. And, as I indicated, I have never gone out of my way to determine if anyone in my acquaintance feels “gay”, so the point is generally moot.

With regard to prescription for Church members, I trust and support the counsel of leaders who are authorized to represent the Church. Elder Oaks has addressed these questions with an authoritative voice — Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 1995, 7.

I note in particular from Oaks:

The gospel applies on the same basis to everyone. Its central truth is our Savior’s atonement and resurrection, that we might have immortality and eternal life. To achieve that destiny, an eternal marriage is the divine and prescribed goal for every child of God, in this life or in the life to come. Nevertheless, this sacred goal must come about in the Lord’s way.

Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22–23, 30, 32). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.

I have no doubt that Mormons do not like or want gays in their congregations.

Indeed. I seldom see specific welcome signs seeking out or recruiting “gay” members, if that is your meaning. And there is an understandable degree of antipathy against those who campaign for the Church to compromise doctrines or policies specifically in order to cater to dissident voices — though this tendency has never been exclusively directed at “gays”.

…explain to me how a ward can make a gay man or woman feel welcome.

By offering the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, without equivocation, partiality, or respect for persons.

I suppose those demanding that God accept them still encumbered with their sins will never feel welcome — though this has nothing in particular to do with “gays”.

What “help” can you give them that still allows them to be fully human?

We will continue striving to teach them the Gospel, along with the rest of Adam’s posterity.

Reiterating from Elder Oaks:

The gospel applies on the same basis to everyone. Its central truth is our Savior’s atonement and resurrection, that we might have immortality and eternal life.

Jim (64) assumes that gays want to “campaign for the Church to compromise doctrines or policies”, which is not what I am doing.

To the contrary, no special assumption was necessary on my part. I am simply sending back what I have heard, consistently, from many of those who claim to be advocates for “gay rights”. These do campaign in behalf of everyone associated with homosexuality. I would have to have been blind and deaf to not have noticed.

In my first comment on this thread, I remarked that the very semantic we associate with “gay” is quite ambiguous. For reasons of their own, a particular collective has co-opted this term to a specific meaning of their own.

When I was in grade school, “gay” had a specific meaning that had nothing whatever to do with sexuality. Today the term has a new meaning associated with it, a meaning assigned by those who presume to represent “gay” — this is what I presume to understand. If my understanding is wrong, if the true meaning of “gay” is misrepresented, it is certainly not through any fault of mine.

I note further the specific comments here that outline the kinds of challenges certain Church members face, in particular because of the supposedly poor attitude of other Church members. While I fully sympathize with those who experience these problems, I again assert that this is not unique to anyone identifying as “gay”. As far as I can tell, I do not feel “gay”, yet I face the same issues with regard to being a single male, voluntarily restricting my own sexual expression, living in chastity, feeling accepted in the general community and among Church members, etc ad infinitum.

In short, very little of what comprises so-called “gay bashing” seems to have anything specific to do with “gay”. Rather, it is a general manifestation that we have a difficult time living up to all the high ideals we preach and aspire to.

No great surprise, that.

As far as acceptance goes, how would you feel if the members of your priesthood quorum had a discussion about people like you and felt that the best way to deal with “your kind” was to stuff them into a barn, lock all the doors, and burn them alive? Ever felt that kind of love and acceptance from the Ward?

In fact, I have.

QED.

My challenge for Jim (and anyone else who cares) is to read the new pamphlet “God Loveth His Children”

Yes, thanks, I have read it, and I do care.

…and then try to understand how it is possible to love and accept a gay person who is not sinning

My understanding is that as a disciple of Christ, I simply strive to treat everyone the same, without respect to whether they are subject to any particular set of special feelings or circumstances. This is convenient counsel, because it does not require me to determine apriori whether someone feels “gay”, has committed any particular sin, or has some other unique circumstances that require special treatment or handling. Fortunate for me — I don’t feel qualified to make such judgements. This attitude basically frees me to consider that all are unique and special before God, and as far as I am concerned, none are more or less deserving of God’s love.

Thus I do strive.

SLTrib articles make me angry...

So, what else is new?

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson continues his ACLU antics...

Rocky rips Bush at "impeachment" rally

Apparently about fifty people showed up to hear the speech. This guy is just a clown and an embarrassment. He is testifying at a sham "impeachment" trial in Washington state -- probably because he would fear assassination if he tried such antics in Utah.

The other editorial article was so full of ironic twisted perversions it still makes me angry just to think of.

School clubs: Gov. Huntsman should veto anti-gay bill

Opens up with traditional slandering of conservative Utah lawmakers.

It is amazing the lengths to which homophobic Utah legislators will go...

This is the standard label for homosexual advocates to use, attempting to discredit those who uphold traditional standards of morality and decency.

Moves right along to...

What we do believe, and hope, is that when Gov. Jon Huntsman reads it, he will have the good sense, the compassion and, yes, the common decency to veto it.

This notwithstanding the fact that the ideals embodied in this editorial reflect the very antithesis of good sense, compassion, and in particular, common decency.

This great example of high-minded critical thinking closes with what amounts to a bit of coarse locker-room humor, which we might expect from dumb football players, but seems out of place in editorials from supposedly responsible journalists. Then again, this is editorial content from the Salt Lake Tribune -- they have a tradition to maintain.