Jump to content
Daniel2

Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is a common claim. Though saying that seems like an attempt to dismiss the lived experience of people who don't embrace the pseudoscience of the new LGBT religion. 

Does that sort of assumption about the intentions of anyone who disagrees with me seem productive or helpful?

I’m just saying it’s best to leave that decision to the person whose sexual orientation it is. I know my sexual orientation is part of me, whether or not I embrace the church’s position or that of the “LBGT religion.” Seems odd that you would use the word “religion” as an insult. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Indeed. My sense is that the Lord Himself acknowledged this very real point repeatedly, including each time He said, 'Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me'.

Again, I disagree that one’s sexual orientation is a cross to be borne. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think much of that toughness would go away if he were accurately characterizing and understanding  the church's doctrinal position.

I’m not going to argue with you about doctrinal positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

In my view, humanity is a problem to be struggled with.

In some ways, sure, but I don’t see that this is part of that struggle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, kllindley said:

That is a common claim. Though saying that seems like an attempt to dismiss the lived experience of people who don't embrace the pseudoscience of the new LGBT religion. 

Ascendant discourses always attempt to mask their genealogies. Those who use their speech to question the totalising objectives of such narratives are therefore always targeted and marginalised.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know the church’s answer to that, but I am glad I don’t see sexual orientation as a problem to be struggled with. 

It's not just about the "terminology" one uses.  At the risk of employing a tautology, if one struggles with something, he struggles with it.  If he doesn't he doesn't ... no matter whether anyone else labels it a struggle or not.   He might consider something you think is "no big deal" (my phrase) a tremendous struggle, and vice-versa. I don't particularly consider my Cerebral Palsy to be much of a struggle (though, to be fair, my case is considered to be on the "mild" end of the spectrum, whatever the hell that means! :blink::rolleyes:  "Mild?!  You think this is mild?!!  You wanna fight me about it, :aggressive: :angry: huh, huh, huh?!!" ;) :D); conversely, someone else might.  Candidly, my CP is probably among the least of my struggles (even if someone else might consider it a big deal, and many I talk to certainly do)! ;):D 

Personally, if the "Trial Fairy" came to me and said, "Congratulations, Ken!  You've been granted the opportunity to give up one of your struggles.  What can I take off of your plate?" I'm not sure the CP would be my choice.  I've been called many things in my life ... crippled, handicapped, disabled, physically challenged, differently-abled, ad infinitum ... Yes, as a person whose spent much of the time in the last twelve years or so (while my "day job" is answering phones :rolleyes:) advocating in one way or another for the rights of those with physical challenges and behavioral health diagnoses, I think person-centered language that doesn't emphasize a single characteristic (e.g., a disability) is important.  But I also agree with an article I read many years ago by another advocate whose main thesis was, "It doesn't matter what you call it, it still sucks."  (And no, I'm not equating sexual orientation and disability in that regard, but they are similar in that if one struggles with one or both of them, he struggles ... whether anyone else thinks he does or not.) 

Although they've come to vastly different conclusions in reconciling their faith with their sexual orientation, apparently, neither California Boy nor KLindley "struggle" with their sexual orientation.  Good for them.  But I can see how someone who hasn't yet reached that point of acceptance might struggle, just as I can see how someone else might struggle far more than I do with my allegedly-"mild" case of CP.  As I've already mentioned, my beef with Dan Reynolds is that, apparently, he thinks that only California Boy's path to reconciling his faith and his sexual orientation is valid, while KLindley's or Tom Christofferson's is not.  (As I've already mentioned, if I were to adopt California Boy's paradigm, I can easily see why he has reached some of the conclusions he has about his faith vis-a-vis his sexual orientation, even if, given the paradigm I hold to, I disagree with those conclusions.)  Vive la difference! :D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not going to argue with you about doctrinal positions. 

I wasn't really looking for an argument about the doctrines of the Church. Rather, I am hoping for an accurate characterization of the doctrines of the Church.

The doctrines, when properly characterized and presented, represent a very plausible and reasonable set of moral precepts and principles.  But that doesn't quite jibe with the narrative that Reynolds is apparently trying to push about the Church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I disagree that one’s sexual orientation is a cross to be borne. 

For some it is, and some it isn't.  To borrow and slightly alter the words of the Great Dread Pirate Roberts/Westley from The Princess Bride, "Life is struggle, Highness!  Anyone who says differently is selling something." ;):D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I disagree that one’s sexual orientation is a cross to be borne. 

So in your opinion it's not a part of 'humanity'?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So in your opinion it's not a part of 'humanity'?

If you think every aspect of being human is a cross to be borne, you have a much different understanding than I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m just saying it’s best to leave that decision to the person whose sexual orientation it is. I know my sexual orientation is part of me, whether or not I embrace the church’s position or that of the “LBGT religion.” Seems odd that you would use the word “religion” as an insult. 

Not an insult at all. It's a position of faith and not scientific fact. Equally valid as theistic religious belief, but an unprovable assumption nonetheless. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wasn't really looking for an argument about the doctrines of the Church. Rather, I am hoping for an accurate characterization of the doctrines of the Church.

The doctrines, when properly characterized and presented, represent a very plausible and reasonable set of moral precepts and principles.  But that doesn't quite jibe with the narrative that Reynolds is apparently trying to push about the Church.

I suppose it depends on one’s perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Ascendant discourses always attempt to mask their genealogies. Those who use their speech to question the totalising objectives of such narratives are therefore always targeted and marginalised.

That pretty much sums up my life from 3rd grade on. First I questioned the notion of popularity and coolness at school, then I questioned the US political atmosphere in college.  Some people are incredibly sensitive to questioning their narratives. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That pretty much sums up my life from 3rd grade on. First I questioned the notion of popularity and coolness at school, then I questioned the US political atmosphere in college.  Some people are incredibly sensitive to questioning their narratives. 

Then it should be ok for someone like Reynolds to question the church without being targeted and marginalized. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Of course he has every right to question! And pointing out false claims and misrepresentation does not equal marginalization or targeting. Have you seen anyone targeting him? Seems like even the most conservative here weren't cool with criticizing him for his divorce. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

 'Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me'.

I know it's become trendy for people to pretend that Jesus was all about feeling good, but the central message of Christianity is, and has been from the beginning, that all of us are flawed and partakers of a fallen nature. Strikingly, each of the anti-Christs in the Book of Mormon essentially preached that people are fine just the way they are. You don't need to agree with any of this, but you genuinely seem surprised, despite knowing that this is an LDS forum, each time that we as Christians fail to acquiesce to ideas that are, at their core, anti-Christ.

If we are not fallen, then there is no need for a Saviour, and Christianity disappears. It's that simple.

Again, I have never believed that every aspect of humanity is a problem to be overcome. My ability to enjoy a beautiful view, to have a deep friendship, or to love—these are not burdens or trials to struggle with. 

What I believe about Jesus is irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then it should be ok for someone like Reynolds to question the church without being targeted and marginalized. 

It's absolutely OK for him to question! But it's important to note that he does so from the privileged position of what has become the dominant discourse. Resistance to that discourse by the subaltern isn't -- indeed can't be -- marginalisation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's absolutely OK for him to question! But it's important to note that he does so from the privileged position of what has become the dominant discourse. Resistance to that discourse by the subaltern isn't -- indeed can't be -- marginalisation.

It’s not the dominant discourse in the church. Either way, I don’t see how he’s vilifying the church or advocating an anti-Christ position. 

I shouldn’t have waded into this. I don’t expect any changes from the church, but I don’t see what Reynolds has done to be an attack on the church. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Some people are incredibly sensitive to questioning their narratives. 

Underlying all cultural hegemonies is the unspoken awareness that they haven't actually 'always already' existed, that they have replaced what went before, and that they therefore are susceptible to being replaced in turn. Success in large part depends on getting nearly everyone to think the same things or at least say the same things. (Or stay silent!) The sensitivity is an expression of this innate fear, I suspect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Telling people that they have no need of repentance is the essence of the anti-Christ messages contained in the Book of Mormon. If people are fine just the way they are, there is literally no need for a Christ.

Telling a church that teaching Christian repentance is literally killing people is pretty close to vilification in my book.

The crazy thing is that overwhelmingly this crisis is being generated by the people who need the crisis to exist. It lacks any historical precedence. It's a demonstrably new phenomenon. People have called it into existence because they need people to be hurt in order to further their agenda. Tragic.

I don’t know how to respond to this. Disagreeing with the church on this issue is not needing people to be hurt for whatever reason. I’m out. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

What word would you or the church use for someone who  completely turning away from the gospel to the point of actively working against the church to try to destroy it?  Someone who publishes books filled with lies about the church and does everything they can to tear down the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't know about the church.  I, personally, would use "anti-mormon" just like someone answered above. 

You now have me curious what people as you describe have been called in conference talks in the last 10 years or so. 

Please note that I never said the word "apostate" has been benign in church history. I was only thinking of Elder Oaks and his definition mind and wondering if the word was actually used in a benign way in 2015. I think he, and the others, are smart enough to recognize that for many people it is charged. As I was thinking about it I have been wondering just what word I could use in place of apostasy and I can't think of one that actually cut the definition as I understand it.  Leave-taking, as calm suggested, will come closer that other terms, but it would also fit my friend who just decided to no longer attend. 

Do you have a better suggestion for a word that fits without the charge?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×