Rock Star & Former Member Tyler Glenn of Neon Trees

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen the video yet but from what I've read it is a stark change in tone from the MS interview.

I know a lot of people are offended by the video and are calling him an angry, bitter, apostate. That may be true but I ask myself how that happened. I hope that instead of being defensive and angry towards Tyler Glenn, people will take a step back and have empathy for a man who feels lost, betrayed, and alienated from a church he once loved. He may be lashing out in anger. He may be intentionally provocative with his art to help others feel his emotion but it is clear he is hurting.

The "policy" was a key turning point for him and I think it is worthwhile to take a step back and consider whether or not this is merely another negative fruit of that policy. So sad.

If there is cause for sadness and regret, it is not anything that the Church has done.

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is cause for sadness and regret, it is not anything that the Church has done.

 

How can you say that Scott?  Since the policy last fall, the church has lost a lot of members.  Shortly before the policy there was a step taken to open the bridge and better understanding between the gays and LDS.   The church is accountable this time. 

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is cause for sadness and regret, it is not anything that the Church has done.

 

This is the reason I won't go talk about any of my questions and issues with my Priesthood leaders.  All they would do is point their finger back at me and say it is all my problem and my fault and the "church" has never, ever done anything wrong.  I can just hear the words, "you just lack faith and are not reading your scriptures enough."  Trust once lost is very hard to regain.

[Storm Rider]

The wages of sin is death.  A young man seeks to take pride in sin and the Church is at fault?

When did Jesus teach that our primary concern should the hurt feelings of his children?  Repentance hurts or is painful.  Having another stand up to our sin is painful.  Should the Church ever excuse itself from teaching truth because truth may be painful for some people?  I don't think so.  I don't think Jesus taught us to back down from standing on truth because the truth may hurt the feelings of others.  I never read where he counseled his disciples remain quiet about God because it may hurt others who worship other gods.  

There has never, in the history of the world, ever been a time when God condoned homosexuality or its practice.  Not once; why do you think that God thinks it is okay today?  Because society approves of it means we should approve of it?  Gads, this gets tiresome.

I don't really care how many wayward people leave the Church because they are gay and want to actively live the lifestyle.  This is not a gray area - it is crystal clear.  The path of righteousness is unambiguous.  

Now before someone gets on their high horse - no where have I urged, encouraged, or support rejecting individuals with SSA.  Their sins are no greater than my sins; we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.  What I am standing on is a sure knowledge of what is and what is not sin.  Some have convinced themselves to be confused, but I do not believe when the Holy Spirit is present there is any confusion or hesitancy.  

There are actions, behaviors, and thoughts that bring us closer to the Spirit - failing to the urges of the flesh outside the bounds God has set is not one of them.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Sometimes the chickens come home to roost...and the church is now receiving the dividends from its decision to classify legally married same sex couples as apostates.  It could have turned out so differently, but they chose the path where everybody loses...

 

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The "policy" was a key turning point for him and I think it is worthwhile to take a step back and consider whether or not this is merely another negative fruit of that policy. So sad.

 

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

How can you say that Scott?  Since the policy last fall, the church has lost a lot of members.  Shortly before the policy there was a step taken to open the bridge and better understanding between the gays and LDS.   The church is accountable this time. 

Adulation and approval from those who would reject God's laws and teaching pertaining to sexuality and marriage and would pressure the Church to do the same is a "dividend" we can live without.

[gopher]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have I missed something? Are we at risk of losing David Archuleta?

 

Not that I'm aware of.  It was a lame joke claiming losing David would be much more devastating to LDS music fans.

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is cause for sadness and regret, it is not anything that the Church has done.

 

It's a sign of immaturity when a person can't self-evaluate enough to see how they may have hurt another person, intended or not.

Hopefully the church is mature enough to reflect both what they did, and how they did it to see if they may have room to improve. Unless they are perfect, which I think we would agree they are not, then there is room for improvement if they care to look.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is the reason I won't go talk about any of my questions and issues with my Priesthood leaders.  All they would do is point their finger back at me and say it is all my problem and my fault and the "church" has never, ever done anything wrong.  I can just hear the words, "you just lack faith and are not reading your scriptures enough."  Trust once lost is very hard to regain.

Being sustained in one's erroneous views or dispositions has never been a reasonable expectation from a conversation with one's priesthood leaders. If it were, they wouldn't be very good priesthood leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a sign of immaturity when a person can't self-evaluate enough to see how they may have hurt another person, intended or not.

Hopefully the church is mature enough to reflect both what they did, and how they did it to see if they may have room to improve. Unless they are perfect, which I think we would agree they are not, then there is room for improvement if they care to look.

The immaturity is on the part of those who vainly believe the Church of Jesus Christ can be pressured to behave in a manner inconsistent with its long-held doctrines, values, teachings and beliefs.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Adulation and approval from those who would reject God's laws and teaching pertaining to sexuality and marriage and would pressure the Church to do the same is a "dividend" we can live without.

That's right...send missionaries out into the world to convert and the mormons who are sitting on the fence..it is good riddance.

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Being sustained in one's erroneous views or dispositions has never been a reasonable expectation from a conversation with one's priesthood leaders. If it were, they wouldn't be very good priesthood leaders.

I agree.  Some of them are not very good Priesthood leaders.  Are you implying all of my issues and questions are fundamentally "erroneous."  Since you don't know them, that is quite presumptuous.  That knee-jerk reaction is what I expect from them.

[Damien the Leper]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understated my point. It would have been more precise to say I'm confident the Church will thrive.

That still does not negate the fact that in some ways the church will lose.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by bluebell
Ignore. Software glitch.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, gopher said:

Not that I'm aware of.  It was a lame joke claiming losing David would be much more devastating to LDS music fans.

OK. Got it.

Being from an older generation, I was disappointed to learn that Randy Bachman (Guess Who, Bachman Turner Overdrive) had left the Church. But I've pretty well gotten over it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The wages of sin is death.  A young man seeks to take pride in sin and the Church is at fault?

When did Jesus teach that our primary concern should the hurt feelings of his children?  Repentance hurts or is painful.  Having another stand up to our sin is painful.  Should the Church ever excuse itself from teaching truth because truth may be painful for some people?  I don't think so.  I don't think Jesus taught us to back down from standing on truth because the truth may hurt the feelings of others.  I never read where he counseled his disciples remain quiet about God because it may hurt others who worship other gods.  

There has never, in the history of the world, ever been a time when God condoned homosexuality or its practice.  Not once; why do you think that God thinks it is okay today?  Because society approves of it means we should approve of it?  Gads, this gets tiresome.

I don't really care how many wayward people leave the Church because they are gay and want to actively live the lifestyle.  This is not a gray area - it is crystal clear.  The path of righteousness is unambiguous.  

Now before someone gets on their high horse - no where have I urged, encouraged, or support rejecting individuals with SSA.  Their sins are no greater than my sins; we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.  What I am standing on is a sure knowledge of what is and what is not sin.  Some have convinced themselves to be confused, but I do not believe when the Holy Spirit is present there is any confusion or hesitancy.  

There are actions, behaviors, and thoughts that bring us closer to the Spirit - failing to the urges of the flesh outside the bounds God has set is not one of them.  

A single rep point from me is hardly enough. You get a bravo!

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Valentinus said:

That still does not negate the fact that in some ways the church will lose.

I think Scott's point is that if ssm really is apostasy, then there is nothing to be lost by the church obeying God and declaring it so.

Individual choices and reactions can still cause suffering and loss, but that would not be the church's fault.  

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The immaturity is on the part of those who vainly believe the Church of Jesus Christ can be pressured to behave in a manner inconsistent with its long-held doctrines, values, teachings and beliefs.

Treating people with real love and respect is consistent with the church's long held doctrines, values, teachings and beliefs, yet it isn't adhering to those values.

The policy is antithetical to the values of the church. One day the church will recognize that and retract. In the mean time, many people are alienated and pushed away. The church may be fine with that but I don't believe God will be.

[Damien the Leper]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think Scott's point is that if ssm really is apostasy, then there is nothing to be lost by the church obeying God and declaring it so.

Individual choices and reactions can still cause suffering and loss, but that would not be the church's fault.  

No matter who makes any choices there is probability that someone will be hurt.

I do not believe the church is meant to cater to wishes of the members but neither are the members meant to cater to the wishes of the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I agree.  Some of them are not very good Priesthood leaders.  Are you implying all of my issues and questions are fundamentally "erroneous."  Since you don't know them, that is quite presumptuous.  That knee-jerk reaction is what I expect from them.

Well, obviously there's no way I can be privy to what your issues and questions are. But from the context of the conversation, it sounded like you were inclined to a spirit of faultfinding

The theoretical point I'm making is that one cannot go to one's priesthood leaders expecting to be stroked and reassured that error and wrongdoing are not really error and wrongdoing.

That said, no one, priesthood leader or not, is justified in behaving in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of the Church.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Just now, Valentinus said:

No matter who makes any choices there is probability that someone will be hurt.

I do not believe the church is meant to cater to wishes of the members but neither are the members meant to cater to the wishes of the church. 

True. The members are meant to cater to the wishes of God. 

The question then becomes, is it God's wish that the members sustain the leaders of the church by following them. 

It's a question every member must answer for themselves. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think Scott's point is that if ssm really is apostasy, then there is nothing to be lost by the church obeying God and declaring it so.

Individual choices and reactions can still cause suffering and loss, but that would not be the church's fault.  

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That's right...send missionaries out into the world to convert and the mormons who are sitting on the fence..it is good riddance.

"Mormons who are sitting on the fence" are just as much in need of conversion -- true conversion -- as anyone else. And assuring someone that his wrong views are not wrong is no way to bring about conversion.

[bcuzbcuz]

41 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't really care 

Yeah, That part I get.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, obviously there's no way I can be privy to what your issues and questions are. But from the context of the conversation, it sounded like you were inclined to a spirit of faultfinding

The theoretical point I'm making is that one cannot go to one's priesthood leaders expecting to be stroked and reassured that error and wrongdoing are not really error and wrongdoing.

 

My issue is more error and wrongdoing on the part of my Priesthood leaders is, actually, error and wrongdoing.  Is that a spirit of faultfinding?  To you maybe yes, but if you can never discuss things that go wrong, how are they ever fixed?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Mormons who are sitting on the fence" are just as much in need of conversion -- true conversion -- as anyone else. And assuring someone that his wrong views are not wrong is no way to bring about conversion.

On the other hand, being aggressively confrontational about someone's "wrong views" is almost a 100% effective way to ensure they will not be converted.