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

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As much as I want him in the Church, I wouldn't want it to be under those circumstances.

Yep.  I wanted Kate Kelly in the Church, too.  An John Dehlin.  And Jeremy Runnels.  And the Calderwoods.  And Denver Snuffer.  And Rock Waterman.  And Grant Palmer.  And Tyler Glenn.  And all the others.

There are times when the Restored Gospel is ironic.  One of the Savior's titles is "The Prince of Peace."  I believe that.  He also said: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  (John 14:27).  I believe that, too.  In both a "macro" and "micro" sense, the Gospel is intended to bring peace and love and harmony into the world.  And eventually, it will.  Meanwhile, however, we are living in a Telestial world.  A world which is moving away from the counsels of God at an ever-accelerating rate.  This increasing distance between the children of men and their Heavenly Father is resulting in tension.  Conflict.  Acrimony.  Such is the way of things in a fallen world.  I think this is why the Savior, the "Prince of Peace," said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34).  He also said:

Quote

49 ¶ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Luke 12)

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

By whom?  Was that directed at me...?

I was speaking generally.  I apologize for the vagueness.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was speaking generally.  I apologize for the vagueness.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the clarification. 

And as that’s that case, not only do I agree with your previous comment, I hope that we all would grant such concessions to one another, regardless of one another’s views.

[hope_for_things]

Just listened to this interview with Dan Reynolds and the director of the documentary and can I just say that I’m a Believer.  What an amazing guy, I’m so proud that Mormonism has produced someone like Dan.  He’s a true pioneer and is such a credit to his religious upbringing in so many ways.  I’m serious about this.  Can’t wait to see the movie.  

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/sundance-2018-believer

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Yep.

Wanting to dialogue with LDS Leadership certainly doesn't mean anyone is immune from excommunication.

Or that they actually want to listen as much as they want to be heard.

(I got the impression from Kate Kelly herself and the way her mom talked about her that she was not someone willing to hear anything but what she wanted to hear; I have no clue if anyone else in Ordain Women were like that though it seems enough were that the course was maintained after Kelly moved on to her next cause; I think they did themselves real harm by making Kelly their spokesperson and she gave them back little loyalty for doing so, imo, given her refusal to contribute after she left to writing a history of OW for spreading the word and fundraising.)

Edited January 24, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Just listened to this interview with Dan Reynolds and the director of the documentary and can I just say that I’m a Believer.  What an amazing guy, I’m so proud that Mormonism has produced someone like Dan.  He’s a true pioneer and is such a credit to his religious upbringing in so many ways.  I’m serious about this.  Can’t wait to see the movie.  

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/sundance-2018-believer

“I’m a Believer.” It was a great song by the Monkees. Neal Diamond wrote it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm glad you enjoy it.   As another (theme) song goes:

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum, what might be right for you, may not be right for some.

A man is born, he's a man of means.  Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

 

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.

It takes Diff'rent Strokes.

It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

 

Everybody's got a special kind of story; Everybody finds a way to shine.

It don't matter that you got not alot. So what?

They'll have theirs, you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.

And together we'll be fine!

 

'Cuz it takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world,

Yes it does.

It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

While I appreciate her incredible voice and obvious talent, Ms. Knight and the Pip's original stuff was before my time and just not my cup of tea, just as you may not enjoy Imagine Dragons--Diff'rent strokes to move the world!

"Love One Another," on the other hand, definitely resonates with me and will always be timeless to me.

One of my joys in life is learning to enjoy music from different time periods and genres. 

“Different Strokes” was a nice TV series. Gentle and funny, with a lot of heart. 

Trivia question: Can you identify the spinoff series from it, one that had a successful run in its own right? 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“I’m a Believer.” It was a great song by the Monkees. Neal Diamond wrote it. 

BTW, Neil Diamond just announced that he's retiring "after a recent diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease."

I've never been a particular fan, but his talent is undeniable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of my joys in life is learning to enjoy music from different time periods and genres. 

“Different Strokes” was a nice TV series. Gentle and funny, with a lot of heart. 

Trivia question: Can you identify the spinoff series from it, one that had a successful run in its own right? 

That would be . . . The Facts of Life.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

That would be . . . The Facts of Life.

Thanks,

-Smac

You win the 1984 Camaro. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

BTW, Neil Diamond just announced that he's retiring "after a recent diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease."

I've never been a particular fan, but his talent is undeniable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I heard that today. Sad. 

I thought he was overrated in later years, but I liked his earlier hits: “Sweet Caroline,” “Solitary Man,” “Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon,” etc. 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

The current state of acrimony and high tension is not attributable to the November 2015 policy changes, but to the sensationalized, agenda-driven, I-hate-the-LDS-Church-so-much-I'm-willing-to-inflict-fear-and-anger-and-confusion-on-children-and-then-exploit-their-reactions-and-weaponize-them-against-the-Church style of controversy ginned up by the Church's critics and opponents.

I wish you were wrong here, smac, but you are not ... and I fear people will hate you for pointing this out.

But history is filled with victims who were led both to and over the brink of destruction by those who found power or influence or even self-identity and purpose by setting themselves up as the self-proclaimed champions of those they harmed.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just listened to this interview with Dan Reynolds and the director of the documentary and can I just say that I’m a Believer.  What an amazing guy, I’m so proud that Mormonism has produced someone like Dan.  He’s a true pioneer and is such a credit to his religious upbringing in so many ways.  I’m serious about this.  Can’t wait to see the movie.  

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/sundance-2018-believer

Thanks for posting your impressions after listening to the actual interview.  I will try to listen today if I get some free time.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wrong.  Nobody is saying such an absurd thing.

Rather, I think we are suggesting that Mr. Reynolds' opinion should not be privileged simply because he is famous.  It should be evaluated on its substantive merits.  And its merits are . . . lacking.

Wrong.  Again.  Why are you doing this?

Why are you asking what the Church should do?  The topic is Dan Reynolds and his apparently bad faith characterizations of the Church.  What should Dan Reynolds do about that?

Let's put aside the emotionalisms.

I think Dan Reynolds should educate himself.  And speak honestly and honorably about what the Church teaches and does regarding LGBT folks.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience in all matters regarding rants.

Okay.  Let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.  That would be a good place to start.

A lot has changed.  Are you capable of acknowledging that?

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy 

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Smac, the problem is not with me.  The problem is not with the gay community.  The problem is not with mainstream media.  This is a two year old story.  When is the last time you read an article about the church policy that was not coming from a member of the church?  The problem is that many members think this policy is wrong and counter to the teachings of Christ.  So if you feel the need to label them as your enemy, then that is entirely your right to do so.  

This is a completely unnecessary policy that is polarizing members of the church against the leadership and causing a PR nightmare outside the church.  It is causing people to turn away from even hearing the gospel.  Despite the claims of some to label this a revelation, it is causing more harm than its intended goal.  Church leaders are stubbornly unwilling to look at the angst this policy is causing and address it.  Let me give you my solution to the problem.

When children of gay parents wish to be baptized, local leaders should counsel closely with those parents and determine if the child will get the parental support for the baptism of that child and ongoing support in attending and thriving in the church.  Great care should be shown to make sure the baptism will not cause any conflict in the home.  Local leaders should proceed with caution and rely on the Spirit to guide them in carefully considering this action.  In all cases, church leaders should do what is best for those children in those same sex families.

No one is silencing church leaders from teaching what it sincerely believes.  And the church can clarify and further explain it's position any time it wants.  They certainly have the resources and platforms to do just that.  They choose not to.  Labeling everyone that has a problem with this policy enemies and critics of the church is not going to make this issue go away.  Nor is labeling anyone who disagrees with the policy haters of the church.  Continuing to do so is only going to deepen the divide that already exist.  Attitudes like the one that you maintain is doing just as much to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families as those that fail to present the policy in the way you wish them to present it.  IT'S A BAD POLICY.  It solves a problem that should be handled on an individual case by case bases by local church leaders that are most familiar with the situation.  It denies local leaders the opportunity to listen to the Spirit to help them be guided in what is best for both the parents and the child.  It is offensive to many and should be reconsidered rather than digging in deeper.  Is there ANY proof that this policy is actually working to solve an existing problem ?

 

[pogi]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“I’m a Believer.” It was a great song by the Monkees. Neal Diamond wrote it. 

There was a great song by the Monkees? 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Smac, the problem is not with me.  The problem is not with the gay community.  The problem is not with mainstream media.  This is a two year old story.  When is the last time you read an article about the church policy that was not coming from a member of the church?  The problem is that many members think this policy is wrong and counter to the teachings of Christ.

I actually know of more members who disagree with the policy vs. those who support it.  From my interactions on this with my ward members, very few strongly support it (it's a tepid support....more just a "well, the leaders know best" type of shrugged support).  Also, one can disagree with the policy and still be opposed to SSM....they are not one in the same and I've seen some members express that too.  But, more are giving their support to gays and their right to marry as time goes on....there is a shift taking place.

 

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

When children of gay parents wish to be baptized, local leaders should counsel closely with those parents and determine if the child will get the parental support for the baptism of that child and ongoing support in attending and thriving in the church.  Great care should be shown to make sure the baptism will not cause any conflict in the home.  Local leaders should proceed with caution and rely on the Spirit to guide them in carefully considering this action.  In all cases, church leaders should do what is best for those children in those same sex families.

No one is silencing church leaders from teaching what it sincerely believes.  And the church can clarify and further explain it's position any time it wants.  They certainly have the resources and platforms to do just that.  They choose not to.  Labeling everyone that has a problem with this policy enemies and critics of the church is not going to make this issue go away.  Nor is labeling anyone who disagrees with the policy haters of the church.  Continuing to do so is only going to deepen the divide that already exist.  Attitudes like the one that you maintain is doing just as much to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families as those that fail to present the policy in the way you wish them to present it.  IT'S A BAD POLICY.  It solves a problem that should be handled on an individual case by case bases by local church leaders that are most familiar with the situation.  It denies local leaders the opportunity to listen to the Spirit to help them be guided in what is best for both the parents and the child.  It is offensive to many and should be reconsidered rather than digging in deeper.  Is there ANY proof that this policy is actually working to solve an existing problem ?

This is all excellent.  What "problem" did the new policy solve?  How many children of those in a SSM were having issues or were not being supported if they did want to join the church?  I'd imagine that this policy has caused the leaders many more problems (with members and PR) than anything they were dealing with prior to the policy being made known.  

I really like what you stated in the first paragraph above, cb....great approach!

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Smac, the problem is not with me.  

I question that.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

The problem is not with the gay community.  The problem is not with mainstream media.  

I question that, too.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is a two year old story.  When is the last time you read an article about the church policy that was not coming from a member of the church?  The problem is that many members think this policy is wrong and counter to the teachings of Christ.  

Some do, yes.  And some understand the need for the policy.  Most, I think, are generally indifferent to it.

Meanwhile, the vitriolic rhetoric I have read seems to be coming overwhelmingly from critics and enemies of the Church.  And here you are, disclaiming any and all responsibility for it.  

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is a completely unnecessary policy that is polarizing members of the church against the leadership and causing a PR nightmare outside the church.  

First, I think the necessity of the policy is quite clear.  

Second, I have yet to see a dispassionate, reasoned, evaluation of the reasons for the policy as given by Pres. Nelson and Elder Christofferson.

Third, most of the polarization and "PR nightmare" is coming from the overheated and hateful rhetoric from people on your side of the issue.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is causing people to turn away from even hearing the gospel.  

I disagree.  I think it is the hateful rhetoric and distorted characterizations of the policy from folks on your side of the issue that are creating tension and animosity.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Despite the claims of some to label this a revelation,

"Some" being . . . the then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the current Presiding High Priest and President of the Church.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

it is causing more harm than its intended goal.  

You and yours are causing most of the harm.

Just yesterday you asked for "a suggestion on how to move forward," under the auspices of you being "really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen."  So I responded as follows:

Quote

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

And your reaction now is . . . to continue to blame the Church.

So much for a good faith discussion of "how to move forward."

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Church leaders are stubbornly unwilling to look at the angst this policy is causing and address it.  

Says the guy who just yesterday solicited "a suggestion on how to move forward," only to totally blow off the response he received.

On this point there is no good faith discussion with you, I think.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Let me give you my solution to the problem.

I decline to consider your solution.  Out of hand.  There is no good faith here.  You asked for a suggestion, only to blow off the response.  You are manifestly refusing to have a discussion.

No good faith.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Reynolds is saying that aside from Donny and Marie, he's one of the most famous (if not the most famous) Mormons in the spotlight today.  In my personal experience, it's clear that a majority of LDS Youth in Utah know that Imagine Dragons are LDS or that Dan Reynolds, the lead singer of Imagine Dragons, is LDS.  Most would have no idea who Gladys Knight, let alone be able to identify any songs she sings (heck... at 45, I'm not sure I can even name any she has, though I'm sure I'd recognize some when I heard them).

Maybe it's a Utah thing. Or, more likely, a (quasi) local band thing. 

I taught a Seminary class in Texas this morning comprised of about 25 sophomores / juniors and, since I was a substitute, I decided to use them as a sample set. As an attention getting activity, I asked them to help me settle an argument about famous Mormons. I told them that I wanted them, without the aid of their phones, to list the most famous Mormons they could think of in the music industry. 

Before I could turn toward the board, with chalk in hand, at least three separate girls blurted out "DAVID ARCHULETA!" Vocal Point was next, followed by (and I'm not saying I called it, but I totally called it) The Piano Guys and Lindsey Stirling. There were a handful of other solo and group performers listed as well - who, I assume, are all totally real. I can honestly say that I hadn't heard of all of them. The artsy girl in class said  I might not have heard of one because he really only did classical music (as if I don't listen to classical music!)

Regretfully, Gladys Knight did not make the list. Neither did Donny and Marie. 

I was kind of surprised that the one kid who was really big into EDM didn't mention Kaskade. That guy is huge - or, at least, he has been for the last several years.

Imagine Dragons was mentioned, but it was literally the last name anybody could come up with - though one of the other alt-rock kids in the class said "they shouldn't really count because only two of them are Mormon and they aren't [inaudible]." I didn't catch the last bit but from his tone I took his comment to mean that he didn't hold them in especially high regard. 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Amulek

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting your impressions after listening to the actual interview.  I will try to listen today if I get some free time.

Thanks, well worth the listen I think.  This is such an important topic for our time.  

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I question that.

I question that, too.

Some do, yes.  And some understand the need for the policy.  Most, I think, are generally indifferent to it.

Meanwhile, the vitriolic rhetoric I have read seems to be coming overwhelmingly from critics and enemies of the Church.  And here you are, disclaiming any and all responsibility for it.  

First, I think the necessity of the policy is quite clear.  

Second, I have yet to see a dispassionate, reasoned, evaluation of the reasons for the policy as given by Pres. Nelson and Elder Christofferson.

Third, most of the polarization and "PR nightmare" is coming from the overheated and hateful rhetoric from people on your side of the issue.

I disagree.  I think it is the hateful rhetoric and distorted characterizations of the policy from folks on your side of the issue that are creating tension and animosity.

"Some" being . . . the then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the current Presiding High Priest and President of the Church.

You and yours are causing most of the harm.

Just yesterday you asked for "a suggestion on how to move forward," under the auspices of you being "really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen."  So I responded as follows:

And your reaction now is . . . to continue to blame the Church.

So much for a good faith discussion of "how to move forward."

Says the guy who just yesterday solicited "a suggestion on how to move forward," only to totally blow off the response he received.

On this point there is no good faith discussion with you, I think.

I decline to consider your solution.  Out of hand.  There is no good faith here.  You asked for a suggestion, only to blow off the response.  You are manifestly refusing to have a discussion.

No good faith.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

We already know you are good at dissecting every single line I write and try to spin it in the worst possible light you possibly can.  And then you accuse me of acting in bad faith.  It speaks volumes however that you don't address my good faith effort to actually address the issue.  Has it ever occurred to you that I might care deeply about both the church and the way the church reacts to some LGBT issues?  For someone who goes on for paragraphs about how others are misrepresenting the church's position on this issue, I think you need to take a closer look in the mirror on how you constantly misrepresent my comments on this issue.  It took you all of 7 minutes to read my response, dismiss it and start your ongoing rant against me.  It is getting to the point that the hopes of having some kind of dialogue with you is futile.

 

Quote

 

This is a completely unnecessary policy that is polarizing members of the church against the leadership and causing a PR nightmare outside the church.  It is causing people to turn away from even hearing the gospel.  Despite the claims of some to label this a revelation, it is causing more harm than its intended goal.  Church leaders are stubbornly unwilling to look at the angst this policy is causing and address it.  Let me give you my solution to the problem.

When children of gay parents wish to be baptized, local leaders should counsel closely with those parents and determine if the child will get the parental support for the baptism of that child and ongoing support in attending and thriving in the church.  Great care should be shown to make sure the baptism will not cause any conflict in the home.  Local leaders should proceed with caution and rely on the Spirit to guide them in carefully considering this action.  In all cases, church leaders should do what is best for those children in those same sex families.

No one is silencing church leaders from teaching what it sincerely believes.  And the church can clarify and further explain it's position any time it wants.  They certainly have the resources and platforms to do just that.  They choose not to.  Labeling everyone that has a problem with this policy enemies and critics of the church is not going to make this issue go away.  Nor is labeling anyone who disagrees with the policy haters of the church.  Continuing to do so is only going to deepen the divide that already exist.  Attitudes like the one that you maintain is doing just as much to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families as those that fail to present the policy in the way you wish them to present it.  IT'S A BAD POLICY.  It solves a problem that should be handled on an individual case by case bases by local church leaders that are most familiar with the situation.  It denies local leaders the opportunity to listen to the Spirit to help them be guided in what is best for both the parents and the child.  It is offensive to many and should be reconsidered rather than digging in deeper.  Is there ANY proof that this policy is actually working to solve an existing problem ?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by california boy

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually know of more members who disagree with the policy vs. those who support it. 

I question how many members even know about the policy.  I don't say this in any disparaging way.  It's a fairly obscure policy that affects very few people.  There would be very little generalized interest about it at all but for the overwrought rhetoric and misleading and false characterizations of it by folks like Dan Reynolds and more than a few people on this board.

I also question how many of them care about it one way or another.  Again, I don't say this in any disparaging way.  I don't blame people for not being overly concerned about a policy that has very little practical application.  I also don't blame members who are ignorant of the Church's nearly century-long policy pertaining to children of polygamous households.  

I also question how many of those who disagree with the policy have gotten their information about the policy from overheated rhetoric in the news media and from critics and enemies of the Church, rather than giving the Church a fair shake (such as by considering the published statements of Pres. Nelson and Elder Christofferson).

I also question how many of those who disagree with the policy likewise object to the corollary policy about children from polygamous families.

I live in Provo.  Utah County.  Mormon Central.  And I work in both Utah County and Salt Lake County.  The policies under discussion here are barely a blip on the radar of most folks.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From my interactions on this with my ward members, very few strongly support it (it's a tepid support....more just a "well, the leaders know best" type of shrugged support). 

It's odd to frame the discussion as a matter of "supporting" an obscure and rarely-utilized "policy."

If I ran a survey of members asking if they "strongly support" the Church's policy regarding excommunication, I'd imagine much of that support would be "tepid" as well.  Who would want to express "strong support" for such an unpleasant - but plainly necessary - policy?

In any event, sustaining the leaders in this context makes quite a bit of sense.  The concept of sustaining leaders only becomes significant when sustaining them is difficult, such as when they are called upon to make difficult or controversial decisions.  That is what we have here.  So I applaud folks who are are willing to stand with the Brethren when what they are doing is unpopular but right. 

Meanwhile, some of the fairweather, any-way-the-wind-blows types may, sadly, proceed to fulfill Ephesians 4:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

The policy, when discussed in calm, measured words, and in good faith, and with good will, and with consideration given to the statements from the Church about it, can readily be understood as an unpleasant but necessary utilization of prophetic authority.

Which, I think, explains why some are so eager to blow off any calls for such reasoned discussion, and instead insist in maintaining the rancor and hostility and substantive mischaracterizations about the policy which pervade popular discussions (as recently demonstrated by Dan Reynolds). 

In this matter, the critics and enemies of the Church are getting results with whipping up a mob mentality.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Maybe it's a Utah thing. Or, more likely, a (quasi) local band thing. 

I taught a Seminary class in Texas this morning comprised of about 25 sophomores / juniors and, since I was a substitute, I decided to use them as a sample set. As an attention getting activity, I asked them to help me settle an argument about famous Mormons. I told them that I wanted them, without the aid of their phones, to list the most famous Mormons they could think of in the music industry. 

Before I could turn toward the board, with chalk in hand, at least three separate girls blurted out "DAVID ARCHULETA!" Vocal Point was next, followed by (and I'm not saying I called it, but I totally called it) The Piano Guys and Lindsey Stirling. There were a handful of other solo and group performers listed as well - who, I assume, are all totally real. I can honestly say that I hadn't heard of all of them. The artsy girl in class said  I might not have heard of one because he really only did classical music (as if I don't listen to classical music!)

Regretfully, Gladys Knight did not make the list. Neither did Donny and Marie. 

I was kind of surprised that the one kid who was really big into EDM didn't mention Kaskade. That guy is huge - or, at least, he has been for the last several years.

Imagine Dragons was mentioned, but it was literally the last name anybody could come up with - though one of the other alt-rock kids in the class said "they shouldn't really count because only two of them are Mormon and they aren't [inaudible]." I didn't catch the last bit but from his tone I took his comment to mean that he didn't hold them in especially high regard. 

So Dan Reynolds is A) famous, and B) nominally Mormon.  But I'm not sure he's famous as a Mormon.  It's just an incidental thing in his bio.  

I think active LDS kids want to look up to role models who take their faith seriously, who are devoted to the Gospel and find ways to live it and also succeed in the broader community.  My children are big fans of the Piano Guys and Lindsey Stirling.  In fact, my wife's brother directed two of Lindsey's music videos.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I question how many members even know about the policy. 

I have found that most (that I associate with) know about it.  There was quite a bit of publicity about it when it was leaked and then with the follow up explanations (and revisions or clarification) from the press room and leaders.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also question how many of them care about it one way or another. 

Oh, most have feelings or opinions on the topic (again from my personal experience with members in my ward and family).  Many have gay friends and family members.  Also, SSM and gay issues are important and relevant to the younger generations (I've over heard many conversations at youth activities, etc.).

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In any event, sustaining the leaders in this context makes quite a bit of sense

We can sustain our leaders and not agree with everything they say or do.  They are not infallible and make mistakes.  For those who do not agree with the policy, I've found it's more of a feeling that it was a mistake to even attempt to implement it (something that is rarely done from what I've heard and seen) and that it was completely unnecessary.

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The policy, when discussed in calm, measured words, and in good faith, and with good will, and with consideration given to the statements from the Church about it, can readily be understood as an unpleasant but necessary utilization of prophetic authority

Well, I disagree (and so do many I've discussed it with).  I can see no good reason for needing such a policy.  None of the explanations that I've seen make much sense and pretty much fall apart when analyzed, IMO.  I feel it's caused much more harm and pain (and loss of membership and future members) than any good that has come from it.

What good has come from it?  Can you relate or point to anything specifically?   

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So Dan Reynolds is A) famous, and B) nominally Mormon.  But I'm not sure he's famous as a Mormon. 

Most all kids (and many adults) are very familiar with their music and really love it.  I think few outside of Utah may know that Reynolds is an active Mormon.  I'll bring it up at our next youth activity and ask!

I think his wife is now a member of the church, but she is an Ex-Scientologist.

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We already know you are good at dissecting every single line I write and try to spin it in the worst possible light you possibly can.  

You ask for suggestions, then immediately blow them off when offered.  No effort whatsoever to consider or discuss them.  It's as if your request was just a platitude, a platform from which you could then present "Now here's what I want to do..."

Well, no thanks.  I'm interested in hashing things out.  You are, of course, under no obligation to consider responses to your request for suggestions on how we can proceed on this issue.  But then you'll need to deal with the reality that your blowing of of those responses amounts to what appears to be a demonstrated lack of good faith.  If you refuse to engage substantive points raised (in response to your own request, no less), then there's not much possibility of a meaningful discussion.

Quote

And then you accuse me of acting in bad faith.  It speaks volumes however that you don't address my good faith effort to actually address the issue.  

There is no good faith discussion when A) you ask for suggestions on how to proceed, B) utterly blow off responses to your request, and C) proceed in the "discussion" (such as it is).

Last week I attended a CLE ("Continuing Legal Education"), which included a panel discussion involving numerous judges from the Utah state courts (trial court and appellate court judges).  During the Q&A sessions, the most common type of question from lawyers to the judges was "What can we do better in our briefs and in oral arguments?"  And the overwhelming response from the judges were "Answer our questions.  Interact with what we have to say to you.  Don't just stick to your script.  If you want to persuade us, you have to address the points we are raising about your arguments."

I'm experiencing something similar right now.  You ask for suggestions on how to proceed.  I provide several.  You blow them off completely.  Fail to address them at all.  And then proceed with your own script.

Have at it, then.  Just don't expect others to follow along.  Or be persuaded.  You are not proceeding in good faith when you ignore what we have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2018 by smac97