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

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Have you actually listened to the interview?  I think a link was posted to it earlier.  (I’ll try to look it up again).

I haven’t had the chance to listen yet, but I’ll reserve judgement until I actually do.  

It sounds like the actual interview may clear up some of your questions and concerns too.

ETA

Found the post!  Here’s the link:

 http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69920-variety-lds-musician-confronts-his-church’s-lgbt-stance-in-new-sundance-documentary/?do=findComment&comment=1209789349

 

Excellent point.

I agree that maybe those who are being so negative here may want to actually take the time to listen to the interview.  Perspectives and quotes can be off and out of context unless one listens to something in its entirety.  I have not listened either and will wait to comment until I can hopefully find some time to listen.

Hope For Things did listen to it and maybe he can share more of what he learned?  

Or has anyone else listened to the interview?  If so, I'd be interested hearing from them too.

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So do I.

But meanwhile, he should stop trading on his membership in the Church to harass it.

Did you listen to the interview yet?  If so, does he do this in the interview....and how (if he does)?

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well now....I never used the word "can't", so don't put words in my mouth.  I stated that I "won't" (derail the thread further).  Two very different things entirely.  

Daniel has requested that we stay on topic and that was a derail (my fault, but I was trying to correct it or not further derail).

My bad. I don't see how "won't" is much better, though.

And you don't have to do it on this thread.

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've definitely missed it.  I'm not being obtuse.  I just don't see much in the way of "depth."

Thanks,

-Smac

Sometimes I think you feel this way because people who do not align with your LDS views are already "that's bad".  You don't seem to get the love and empathy that Jesus taught...it is all about the church..not real people.  In my view, you are losing so much.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Sometimes I think you feel this way because people who do not align with your LDS views are already "that's bad".  You don't seem to get the love and empathy that Jesus taught...it is all about the church..not real people.  In my view, you are losing so much.

No  It's not a matter of "feeling."  It's a matter of comprehension.  It's a matter of communication, or lack thereof.

I don't see "depth" in the remarks here.  It's not that I am incapable of perceiving divergent opinions.  I just have not seen much in the way of reasoned analysis about this issue.

Beyond that, let's not personalize the thread or take it off-topic.  This thread is not about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Another news item on Dan Reynolds:

Again, this is pretty dishonest.  "Shaming" here appears to be code for "teaching a code of sexual ethics and expecting members to adhere to it."

There doesnt' seem to be anything here at all to suggest that Shaming appears to be what you have said.  I think the problem he is pointing out is, and I agree with him after having spoken with many LGBTQ folks who grew up LDS, that they often feel guilty and ashamed for who they are.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

One could just as easily say "The Church's opposition to elective abortion is damaging the self-worth of women who have elective abortions."  Or "The Church's opposition to fornication is damaging the self-worth of individuals who have sex outside of marriage."  Or "The Church's opposition to polygamous marriages is damaging the self-worth of members who enter into polygamy."

It certainly doesn't matter what one could say.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And on and on.  What is Mr. Reynolds' limiting principle here?  Does he have one?  At all?  Any of the Church's teachings that in any way infringe on anyone's personal choices are presumptively bad and damaging to "self-worth," and must be abandoned?

Moreover, this is a doctrinal issue.  It is one thing to dispute the Church's implementation of the policy changes.  But he wants to challenge the Church's doctrine regarding same-sex marriage.

Well, no thanks.  Doctrine is not something to be determined by self-selected rockstars, even if they are famous.  I see no reason to privilege his personal opinion as to the Church's doctrines about marriage and the Law of Chastity.

 

Quote

"These kids are being told their most innate sense of being is sinful," said Reynolds, a Mormon from Las Vegas. "Shaming is so destructive."  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, Mr. Reynolds is bearing false witness here.  Very disappointing.  

Wait a second, smac.  How do you know that he is bearing false witness here?  Do you know what the kids have been told?  It appears to me he actually has spoken to the kids and it appears to me, he may have an idea what these kids have been told.  It appears to me, you are saying "well the Church's official position, at least now is, that leaders should not tell kids who are gay that they are being sinful for being gay".  Well, fine, but again, you can't accuse him of bearing false witness if you have nothing to back up your accusation.  Again, how do you know what these kids are being told?  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, the Church has been emphatic on this point for years now.  It's hard to chalk this up to ignorance or a slip of the tongue.  That leaves . . . bad faith.

Bad faith?  Smac.  I don't know what you're trying to do here.  You don't know what these kids are told at all.  Keep that in mind.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate that the media here is letting the Church speak for itself.

Meanwhile, here's Mr. Reynolds' response:

And there it is, folks.  There it is.  Doctrine by fiat of a self-selected famous rockstar.  Not revelation.

This is absurd.  Mr. Reynolds must know he is demanding the impossible.  And he's asking for the impossible while simultaneously publicly disparaging the Church ("platituds are empty words").

I hope he has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure you are quite getting what he's saying.  But that's ok.  I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss him because he's a rockstar.  I'm reminded of Packer getting all upset about Avraham Gileadi, at least as revealed by others, to the point of seeking he get ex'd for his work on Isaiah.  he seemed to hold the same attitude as you about musicians.  In my experience many members who often have left the Church in some way or another, who are gay, having often grown up in it, feel like the words that have come to them from the Church in trying to make them feel better, have really felt empty.  

I'm rather encouraged by his effort.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There doesnt' seem to be anything here at all to suggest that Shaming appears to be what you have said. 

The other option is even worse: That he is suggesting that there is some sort of formal "shaming" mechanism in the Church.  That would be flagrantly false.  The only people who know about discipline are those directly involved.  So I think he's going pretty far afield in accusing the Church of "shaming" people by . . . providing teachings about the Law of Chastity, requiring members to adhere to those teachings, and privately disciplining them when they transgress.  "Shaming" is not a part of what the Church does.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the problem he is pointing out is, and I agree with him after having spoken with many LGBTQ folks who grew up LDS, that they often feel guilty and ashamed for who they are.  

His remarks about "shame" pertain to his own experience of getting kicked out of BYU.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wait a second, smac.  How do you know that he is bearing false witness here?  Do you know what the kids have been told?  It appears to me he actually has spoken to the kids and it appears to me, he may have an idea what these kids have been told.  It appears to me, you are saying "well the Church's official position, at least now is, that leaders should not tell kids who are gay that they are being sinful for being gay".  Well, fine, but again, you can't accuse him of bearing false witness if you have nothing to back up your accusation.  Again, how do you know what these kids are being told?

So there's some wide swath of bishops and stake presidents out there?  Defying and ignoring the Church's teachings, and instead declaring to youth that "being gay" is "sinful?"

Sorry.  That doesn't pass the smell test.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure you are quite getting what he's saying.  But that's ok.  I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss him because he's a rockstar. 

I don't dismiss him.  I just don't privilege his opinion because he's famous.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Have you actually listened to the interview?  I think a link was posted to it earlier.  (I’ll try to look it up again).

I haven’t had the chance to listen yet, but I’ll reserve judgement until I actually do.  

It sounds like the actual interview may clear up some of your questions and concerns too.

ETA

Found the post!  Here’s the link:

 http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69920-variety-lds-musician-confronts-his-church’s-lgbt-stance-in-new-sundance-documentary/?do=findComment&comment=1209789349

 

Okay.  Listened to it.  Here are my notes:

1. Interviewer: He's a famous rockstar, the frontman for Imagine Dragons.

2. Interviewer: He wants to "make amends" for teaching that homosexual behavior is "sinful."

3. Director: "Hard rock and heavy metal music" is "my religion."

4. Interviewr: The film is "mostly about music."

5. Dan: I had a "faith crisis" at 13, and I explored it through music.  It was very therapeutic.  It was me beat-boxing and singing by myself.

6. Dan: I don't like the word "activist."  Other people deserve it.  I was raised to please people.  It took me until I'm 30 to realize that I can be nice and still disagree with people.

7. Dan: There's a lot about Mormonism that I cherish.  I'm still Mormon.  But enough is enough.  It's now time to have a voice.  And if that offends some people along the way, that's okay.  

8. Interviewer: Ironically, Dan is using the resilience he developed as a Mormon missionary to make this film.

9. Don (Director): Dan's new "mission" is to take the good things the Church has provided him and "spinning them around on the Church."  This is "beautiful."

10. Dan: I have a strange dichotomy of appreciation for my mission.  I appreciate it, but I never want to do it again.  I don't want people to spit on me.  Missionaries really get ridiculed and beat up.  The first day of my mission a man walked up to me and said "You are the weakest of the weak.  Religion is for weak people."  He was a handsome, tall, strong guy.  It makes me emotional.  I wanted to find my sense of self.  

11. Dan: Then I came back and started my band and it took off.  Everyone was loving or hating my music.  Everyone wants me to talk about myself.  Everyone expects me to be doing drugs and be "debaucherous."  I had my moments of debauchery.  It was a necessary thing for me.  I experienced life on a lot of levels.  Then I came out somewhere in the middle and felt free.

12: Dan: Right before I went to BYU, I told my bishop I had had sex with my Catholic girlfriend.  A week before I was supposed to go to BYU, I was kicked out.  Totally shamed me before my whole community.  This "shaming" is what got me going on my journey.  This is wrong.  I was still feeling things out about religious things like Joseph Smith.  But the shaming thing was wrong because it sent me into a deep depression.  It triggered a deep depression which I've now dealth with for 10+ years.  And I attribute it to that moment in time.

13: Dan: I had a gay friend in middle school.  He was Mormon.  It was difficult for him to hide it from his parents.  His mom once came into his room when he was 16 and told him she had had a nightmare that he was gay, and that she was grateful it was just a nightmare.  And here he was, a closeted gay.  That's the reality of these kids.

14. Dan: When I met my wife, she was living with two gay friends.  Then I come along, a Mormon boy.  I'm the enemy.  They were upset that she would date me, let alone marry me.  They refused to come to our wedding.  My wife felt like her punk rock community was accusing her when she married me of becoming a fraud and turning her back on her activism.  All her friends didn't call me by my name, they called me "Mormon Boy."  That hurt me, but now I understand it, because I represented everything that was holding them back from being married.

15. Interviewer: Teen suicide in Utah is a big deal.  A statistic is mentioned that the suicide rate has tripled since 2008.  

16. Dan: I am very close to my family.  The last thing I want to do is hurt them or disrespect them.  But on the same note, I have to follow my heart.  And my heart has brought me to a place where we divide.  I might be excommunicated by John Dehlin.  Excommunication is such a damning, overwhelmingly devastating thing.  Your community knows about it.  Your family knows about it.  The teaching is that your family goes to heaven, and you don't.  And you progress, and you don't.  You're out of the tribe.  It's like a scarlet letter.

17. Dan: Mormons are conflicted about this.  They want equality and justice for all, but the Mormon leaders are saying this is a sin.  So the question is how to rally people.  It's no help to rally the people who are already rallied.  I need to get the far right Mormons, "who think that being gay is a sin next to murder, which is what the Church taught."  These Mormons needed to see these gay kids, and I hoped it would push them over the edge and say "You know what, I'm not okay with this."

18. Dan: I had a discussion with my wife about the LoveLoud concert.  How do we not offend 50% of the people who come?  My wife said "You're just trying to enlighten people, you're not trying to offend."  I said "You see what you just said?  'Enlighten.'  You're in the dark.  Let me enlighten you."  My wife said "No no, educate."  I said, oh, so it's like "You're stupid, let me education you."  My wife said "No, that's not true.  People don't know statistics.  They don't know the reality of what's happening."  I said "We can't come in and say 'you're wrong.'  Let's come in and say 'let's talk," and believe in the goodness of people."  I said "We can't change their minds.  They have to change their minds."  I said "It's Mormonism.  It's my community.  These are my people.  The last thing I want to do is say 'I'm right, you're wrong, come and let me tell you why.'"  It needs to be "Come to the table and see what's happening."

19. Interviewer: You heard something from General Conference.  It was not what you wanted to hear.  It as exactly the opposite of what you wanted to hear.

20: Dan: When you are fighting for something, when you feel change is on the horizon . . . I'm not a naive Mormon.  I wasn't expecting the prophet to get up and say "Hey, God has revealed to us that it's okay to be gay."  I wasn't expecting that.  They're in a strange position.  Say that God did give them such a revelation.  That would be pretty suspicious.  So we need to talk about teen suicide.  And be angry about it.  We need some acknowledgement from the leaders that they are working to make things better.  Instead, what did the do?  They said 'Let us tell you something you all know.  We've told it to you for decades.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  And being gay and acting upon it is a sin.'  It frustrates me that I have to say that.  

21: Dan: The distinction between "being gay" and "doing gay stuff" is silly.  We need to drop that.  The Mormon Church is speaking in platitudes of love.  Mormons say to me "Hey, the Church is telling us we need to love our gay kids, and that's good."  But in a way, that's more dangerous.  When you open this door, and say there's a place for you, and it's shiny inside, these gay kids walk in and think maybe there's a place for the, but there's thumbtacks all over the floor.  And they are being beat up.  I'd rather the Church say "There's a line in the sand.  Don't come in.  It's not safe for you."  But I'm conflicted about that too.  Telling Mormon kids to just leave, to introduce that conflict into their home, is just so dangerous.  Maybe their religion is important to them.  Maybe it makes them the best person they want to be.  So who are you to tell the otherwise?  So the question is, how do we make it safe for them?  

22. Dan: I've heard lots of stories about kids "coming out" after LoveLoud.  I'm glad of that.  But will the suicide rate go down after this movie comes out?  I don't know.  I don't think we can have progress with these policies in place.  The two options are A) be celibate, or B) ________ (he doesn't finish this thought).

23. Dan: Part of me wants to say "Thank you, Mormon Church, for trying.  But you're failing."  I sat down with two apostles after LoveLoud.  They genuinely wanted to make things better.  And I told them there's only one thing: the policies have to change.  

24. Interview: But the policy changes are revelation.  The current president of the Church, Russell M. Nelson, said as much.

25. Dan: Yeah, but they also said that it was God's will that only white men can have the priesthood.  That changed.  They also said it was God's will that men could have a lot of wives.  That changed, too.

26. Dan: There are a lot of parts of Mormonism that I love.  But there are things that I am pretty upset about, and that I hope change.

27. Dan: I want to say one more thing.  Mormons believe that their Church is run by men, who can nevertheless make mistakes.  For all those believing Mormons, I say that our church is primed for this.  If there is an orthodox religion that can make this change, it's Mormonism.  Even the prophets make mistakes.  

________________

So yes, I am glad I listened to him.  I have a hard time understanding what it is he wants, though.

• On the one hand, he has himself introduced as wanting to "make amends" for teaching . . . the doctrines of the Church.
• But on the other hand, he's "not a naive Mormon" and doesn't expect the president of the Church to change the doctrines of the Church.  In fact, such a change would be "suspicious."
• But on the other hand, he became angry when the Church reiterated its teachings about homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.
• But on the other hand, he ends the interview with declaring that "the policies (from 2015, which don't relate to "being gay" being a "sin") have to change."
• But on the other hand, he acknowledges that "the policies" (which he keeps very vague - what "policies?"  Is he referring to more than the 2015 changes?) have been declared to be revelatory.
• But on the other hand, he says the Church is "primed" to change . . . something (again, he's very vague here) becase "even the prophets make mistakes."
• On the other hand, he has told other media outlets that "the church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex."

He's a rather conflicted person, it seems.  He has genuine affection and love for the Church and its people.  But his personal experiences and people who influence him are creating some real conflict. 

For example, he really still seems to resent being "kicked out" of BYU (translation: he was not allowed to attend for a year because he violated one of the most serious commandments in the Church).  That seems to be a lingering sore spot, particularly since it is the apparent genesis of his weird claim about the Church "shaming" people.  And since he's been depressed about it for ten years (despite the fact that he was later admitted to BYU), it seems like this event is still sticking in his craw.  As if he thinks the Church was wrong to expect him to adhere to the standards of the Church.

His wife appears to have traveled in circles which hate Mormons.  Her roommates treated him pretty horribly, and created an us-or-them dichotomy, and then carried through with it by boycotting their wedding.  So yea, a lot of peer pressure, past and present, may be in play.

Also, it's rather odd that he denounces the Church for "shaming" him by not letting him attend BYU (though it let him attend later), and yet his wife's gay punk rock friends regularly scorned and humiliated him, treated him as "the enemy," refused to use his name, and instead called him "Mormon Boy," and all this hurt him.  But then he waves it away, because Mormons were "holding back" gays from getting married.  So "shaming" is bad when Mormons do it (and they don't, really), but just hunky dory for punk rocking lesbians.

Also, both Dan and his wife make a big deal out of "statistics," including a claim that teen suicides (I think it was teens) have tripled in Utah since 2008 (clearly trying to link the increase to the Church's involvement in Prop 8 .  His wife in particular seems bend on educating ignorant Utah Mormons about these "statistics."  However, I think there are some real problems with this.  Gay teends are a statistically very small percentage of the population in general.  What stats are there about gay teen suicides in Utah?  Moreover, the teen suicide rate in Utah has fluctuated since 2008, going down twice year over year since then, although the trend is generally up from 2011 to present.  There was a big uptick from 2011 (4.6) to 2012 (5.9) to 2013 (8.1) to 2014 (8.5).  What did the Church do in 2011 that caused a rash of gay teen suicides?

Meanwhile, let's consider this bit of data (from the same link):

Quote

Utah did not include the sexual orientation question on the 2015 YRBS survey meaning Utah data is not available for these measures. The Utah Department of Health plans to include this question on the 2017 YRBS. In Utah and throughout most of the U.S., no comprehensive data exists regarding the number of suicide deaths among LGBT persons because sexual orientation and gender identity are not generally collected during a police investigation of a death.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2018 by smac97

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Listened to it.  Here are my notes:

 

Wow!  Thank you smac.  Did you write the entire interview out above?  Or just the parts that were of interest to you?

I will read through it, but just wanted to thank you for doing this.

[Avatar4321]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:07 AM, hope_for_things said:

Not really, the church says you have to get married, and is constantly telling the single people to get married.  That's because the theology says you have to be married to make it into the celestial kingdom.  Being gay is the only legitimate kind of celibacy in mortality, and there is no articulation that I'm aware of for how gay people will live in the next life.  If they have explained this officially, I would love to hear about it, but I can't recall any explanations.  

Actually everyone is encouraged to be married but there are always going to be challenges to that. I suspect the Lord will be merciful to those He sees fit

[Avatar4321]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Listened to it.  Here are my notes:

1. Interviewer: He's a famous rockstar, the frontman for Imagine Dragons.

2. Interviewer: He wants to "make amends" for teaching that homosexual behavior is "sinful."

3. Director: "Hard rock and heavy metal music" is "my religion."

4. Interviewr: The film is "mostly about music."

5. Dan: I had a "faith crisis" at 13, and I explored it through music.  It was very therapeutic.  It was me beat-boxing and singing by myself.

6. Dan: I don't like the word "activist."  Other people deserve it.  I was raised to please people.  It took me until I'm 30 to realize that I can be nice and still disagree with people.

7. Dan: There's a lot about Mormonism that I cherish.  I'm still Mormon.  But enough is enough.  It's now time to have a voice.  And if that offends some people along the way, that's okay.  

8. Interviewer: Ironically, Dan is using the resilience he developed as a Mormon missionary to make this film.

9. Don (Director): Dan's new "mission" is to take the good things the Church has provided him and "spinning them around on the Church."  This is "beautiful."

10. Dan: I have a strange dichotomy of appreciation for my mission.  I appreciate it, but I never want to do it again.  I don't want people to spit on me.  Missionaries really get ridiculed and beat up.  The first day of my mission a man walked up to me and said "You are the weakest of the weak.  Religion is for weak people."  He was a handsome, tall, strong guy.  It makes me emotional.  I wanted to find my sense of self.  

11. Dan: Then I came back and started my band and it took off.  Everyone was loving or hating my music.  Everyone wants me to talk about myself.  Everyone expects me to be doing drugs and be "debaucherous."  I had my moments of debauchery.  It was a necessary thing for me.  I experienced life on a lot of levels.  Then I came out somewhere in the middle and felt free.

12: Dan: Right before I went to BYU, I told my bishop I had had sex with my Catholic girlfriend.  A week before I was supposed to go to BYU, I was kicked out.  Totally shamed me before my whole community.  This "shaming" is what got me going on my journey.  This is wrong.  I was still feeling things out about religious things like Joseph Smith.  But the shaming thing was wrong because it sent me into a deep depression.  It triggered a deep depression which I've now dealth with for 10+ years.  And I attribute it to that moment in time.

13: Dan: I had a gay friend in middle school.  He was Mormon.  It was difficult for him to hide it from his parents.  His mom once came into his room when he was 16 and told him she had had a nightmare that he was gay, and that she was grateful it was just a nightmare.  And here he was, a closeted gay.  That's the reality of these kids.

14. Dan: When I met my wife, she was living with two gay friends.  Then I come along, a Mormon boy.  I'm the enemy.  They were upset that she would date me, let alone marry me.  They refused to come to our wedding.  My wife felt like her punk rock community was accusing her when she married me of becoming a fraud and turning her back on her activism.  All her friends didn't call me by my name, they called me "Mormon Boy."  That hurt me, but now I understand it, because I represented everything that was holding them back from being married.

15. Interviewer: Teen suicide in Utah is a big deal.  A statistic is mentioned that the suicide rate has tripled since 2008.  

16. Dan: I am very close to my family.  The last thing I want to do is hurt them or disrespect them.  But on the same note, I have to follow my heart.  And my heart has brought me to a place where we divide.  I might be excommunicated by John Dehlin.  Excommunication is such a damning, overwhelmingly devastating thing.  Your community knows about it.  Your family knows about it.  The teaching is that your family goes to heaven, and you don't.  And you progress, and you don't.  You're out of the tribe.  It's like a scarlet letter.

17. Dan: Mormons are conflicted about this.  They want equality and justice for all, but the Mormon leaders are saying this is a sin.  So the question is how to rally people.  It's no help to rally the people who are already rallied.  I need to get the far right Mormons, "who think that being gay is a sin next to murder, which is what the Church taught."  These Mormons needed to see these gay kids, and I hoped it would push them over the edge and say "You know what, I'm not okay with this."

18. Dan: I had a discussion with my wife about the LoveLoud concert.  How do we not offend 50% of the people who come?  My wife said "You're just trying to enlighten people, you're not trying to offend."  I said "You see what you just said?  'Enlighten.'  You're in the dark.  Let me enlighten you."  My wife said "No no, educate."  I said, oh, so it's like "You're stupid, let me education you."  My wife said "No, that's not true.  People don't know statistics.  They don't know the reality of what's happening."  I said "We can't come in and say 'you're wrong.'  Let's come in and say 'let's talk," and believe in the goodness of people."  I said "We can't change their minds.  They have to change their minds."  I said "It's Mormonism.  It's my community.  These are my people.  The last thing I want to do is say 'I'm right, you're wrong, come and let me tell you why.'"  It needs to be "Come to the table and see what's happening."

19. Interviewer: You heard something from General Conference.  It was not what you wanted to hear.  It as exactly the opposite of what you wanted to hear.

20: Dan: When you are fighting for something, when you feel change is on the horizon . . . I'm not a naive Mormon.  I wasn't expecting the prophet to get up and say "Hey, God has revealed to us that it's okay to be gay."  I wasn't expecting that.  They're in a strange position.  Say that God did give them such a revelation.  That would be pretty suspicious.  So we need to talk about teen suicide.  And be angry about it.  We need some acknowledgement from the leaders that they are working to make things better.  Instead, what did the do?  They said 'Let us tell you something you all know.  We've told it to you for decades.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  And being gay and acting upon it is a sin.'  It frustrates me that I have to say that.  

21: Dan: The distinction between "being gay" and "doing gay stuff" is silly.  We need to drop that.  The Mormon Church is speaking in platitudes of love.  Mormons say to me "Hey, the Church is telling us we need to love our gay kids, and that's good."  But in a way, that's more dangerous.  When you open this door, and say there's a place for you, and it's shiny inside, these gay kids walk in and think maybe there's a place for the, but there's thumbtacks all over the floor.  And they are being beat up.  I'd rather the Church say "There's a line in the sand.  Don't come in.  It's not safe for you."  But I'm conflicted about that too.  Telling Mormon kids to just leave, to introduce that conflict into their home, is just so dangerous.  Maybe their religion is important to them.  Maybe it makes them the best person they want to be.  So who are you to tell the otherwise?  So the question is, how do we make it safe for them?  

22. Dan: I've heard lots of stories about kids "coming out" after LoveLoud.  I'm glad of that.  But will the suicide rate go down after this movie comes out?  I don't know.  I don't think we can have progress with these policies in place.  The two options are A) be celibate, or B) ________ (he doesn't finish this thought).

23. Dan: Part of me wants to say "Thank you, Mormon Church, for trying.  But you're failing."  I sat down with two apostles after LoveLoud.  They genuinely wanted to make things better.  And I told them there's only one thing: the policies have to change.  

24. Interview: But the policy changes are revelation.  The current president of the Church, Russell M. Nelson, said as much.

25. Dan: Yeah, but they also said that it was God's will that only white men can have the priesthood.  That changed.  They also said it was God's will that men could have a lot of wives.  That changed, too.

26. Dan: There are a lot of parts of Mormonism that I love.  But there are things that I am pretty upset about, and that I hope change.

27. Dan: I want to say one more thing.  Mormons believe that their Church is run by men, who can nevertheless make mistakes.  For all those believing Mormons, I say that our church is primed for this.  If there is an orthodox religion that can make this change, it's Mormonism.  Even the prophets make mistakes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

He seems to have many misunderstandings about the Church

[Avatar4321]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:07 AM, hope_for_things said:

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Avatar4321
Duplicate

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Actually everyone is encouraged to be married but there are always going to be challenges to that. I suspect the Lord will be merciful to those He sees fit

Gay people are prohibited by church rules from marrying a partner that they are naturally attracted to.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wow!  Thank you smac.  Did you write the entire interview out above?  Or just the parts that were of interest to you?

I will read through it, but just wanted to thank you for doing this.

Just the main parts about Dan's comments about the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Did you listen to the interview yet?  If so, does he do this in the interview....and how (if he does)?

He has already been quoted at length here. Why do I have to listen to an interview? Were the quotes inaccurate? Were they out of context?

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Gay people are prohibited by church rules from marrying a partner that they are naturally attracted to.  

So are straight people who may be attracted to more than one person.  Polygamy is not allowed, even if the parties are "naturally attracted to" each other.

Similarly, all members of the Church are prohibited from sexual behavior outside of marriage, even if they are "naturally attracted to" each other.

Let me lay out a few things to clarify my position (which, I think, largely reflects the teachings of the LDS Church):

1. Homosexual Conduct is Incompatible with Marriage:

Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God (and, as a corollary, sexual conduct outside of that union is per se sinful). 

Heterosexual behavior is, within boundaries set by God, condoned, celebrated, endorsed, mandated, whereas homosexual behavior is not.

Sexual fidelity within marriage is privileged, whereas sexual infidelity or promiscuity is not.

Consensual sexual behavior is privileged, whereas nonconsensual sexual behavior is not.

God had commanded us to engage in certain behaviors (consensual heterosexual behavior within marriage) and prohibited us from engaging in other behaviors (adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, rape, incest, etc.).

2. Homosexual Conduct is One of Many Types of Sexual Conduct Prohibited by God:

Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). In their 14 November 1991 letterconcerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

I recognize that our current society, including some members of the Church, really really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity.  There are all sorts of machinations which have been attempted, including radically re-defining the word "marriage," accusing the Brethren of hate-based bigotry for not toeing the currently trendy line of embracing and celebrating same-sex behaviors, and so on.  But I just don't think this will work.

3. Severance from the Purpose of Sex:

Homosexual conduct necessarily and always separates sex from its fundamental purposes: A) the strengthening of a union between husband and wife and B) procreation.  

Elder Oaks put it this way:

Quote

Every Latter-day Saint knows that God has forbidden all sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. Most are also aware of the Savior’s teaching that it is sinful for a man to look upon and lust after a woman (see Matt. 5:28; D&C 42:23; 63:16).

Attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children. In contrast, deviations from God’s commandments in the use of procreative powers are grave sins. President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“Sexual union is lawful in wedlock, and if participated in with right intent is honorable and sanctifying. But without the bonds of marriage, sexual indulgence is a debasing sin, abominable in the sight of Deity.”

4. All of Us Are Held to the Same Standard:

Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else. There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate. Those who are married are commanded to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken):

This one is pretty straightforward, but it still gets glossed over.  A lot.

A married man doesn't get to have an adulterous affair because he desires it. 

A married man doesn't get to enter into polygamy because he desires it.

An unmarried person doesn't get to have sex because he desires it.

And, yes, members of the Church do not get to engage in homosexual behavior, even if they desire it.  

Desires are not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

This board is chalkablock full of threads and posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.  But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fail.

I should clarify something: I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of happiness.  I wish them the best.  However, in my community, in my voluntary association with other like-minded persons who belief in the Restored Gospel, we must come to grips with the reality that God will sometimes command us to do things that may be unpopular or difficult to understand.  Sexual behavior is a big part of life.  An important part.  It makes sense that God would impose regulations about it.  It would also make sense that "The World" might disagree with those regulations.  So we need to take a good hard look at what the prophets and apostles and the scriptures are saying, and make sure we are on the right track.  

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod.

Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

I'll end with this encouragement from our Lord: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25, 2018 by smac97

[Avatar4321]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Gay people are prohibited by church rules from marrying a partner that they are naturally attracted to.  

That doesn't mean they, like everyone else are encouraged to if they can. Though I certainly understand if the dont

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The other option is even worse: That he is suggesting that there is some sort of formal "shaming" mechanism in the Church.  That would be flagrantly false.  The only people who know about discipline are those directly involved.  So I think he's going pretty far afield in accusing the Church of "shaming" people by . . . providing teachings about the Law of Chastity, requiring members to adhere to those teachings, and privately disciplining them when they transgress.  "Shaming" is not a part of what the Church does.

His remarks about "shame" pertain to his own experience of getting kicked out of BYU.

So there's some wide swath of bishops and stake presidents out there?  Defying and ignoring the Church's teachings, and instead declaring to youth that "being gay" is "sinful?"

Sorry.  That doesn't pass the smell test.

I don't dismiss him.  I just don't privilege his opinion because he's famous.

Thanks,

-Smac

I shouldn't have made it personal.  I apologize.

[Avatar4321]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Gay people are prohibited by church rules from marrying a partner that they are naturally attracted to.  

Also, I know this is unpopular outside the Gospel. But the natural man is an enemy to God. We are all called to put off the natural man and yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man.

The world seeks to change human behavior, Christ changes human nature.

I personally struggle with a lot of natural tendencies that are contrary to the Gospel. The Lord has given me power over some, others, like my anger, I still struggle with. That doesn't mean I am justified if I give into my anger. 

God is with all of us if we seek Him.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So are straight people who may be attracted to more than one person.  Polygamy is not allowed, even if the parties are "naturally attracted to" each other.

Similarly, all members of the Church are prohibited from sexual behavior outside of marriage, even if they are "naturally attracted to" each other.

Let me lay out a few things to clarify my position (which, I think, largely reflects the teachings of the LDS Church):

1. Homosexual Conduct is Incompatible with Marriage: Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God (and, as a corollary, sexual conduct outside of that union is per se sinful). 

Heterosexual behavior is, within boundaries set by God, condoned, celebrated, endorsed, mandated, whereas homosexual behavior is not.

Sexual fidelity within marriage is privileged, whereas sexual infidelity or promiscuity is not.

Consensual sexual behavior is privileged, whereas nonconsensual sexual behavior is not.

God had commanded us to engage in certain behaviors (consensual heterosexual behavior within marriage) and prohibited us from engaging in other behaviors (adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, rape, incest, etc.).

2. Homosexual Conduct is One of Many Types of Sexual Conduct Prohibited by God: Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). In their 14 November 1991 letterconcerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

I recognize that our current society, including some members of the Church, really really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity.  There are all sorts of machinations which have been attempted, including radically re-defining the word "marriage," accusing the Brethren of hate-based bigotry for not toeing the currently trendy line of embracing and celebrating same-sex behaviors, and so on.  But I just don't think this will work.

3. Severance from the Purpose of Sex: Homosexual conduct necessarily and always separates sex from its fundamental purposes: A) the strengthening of a union between husband and wife and B) procreation.  Elder Oaks put it this way:

4. All of Us Are Held to the Same Standard: Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).

People with same-sex attraction are asked to abide by the same standards as anyone else. There is no shortage of widowed, divorced, not-yet or never-married church members who are commanded to be celibate. Those who are married are commanded to confine their behavior to certain parameters.

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken): This one is pretty straightforward, but it still gets glossed over.  A lot.

A married man doesn't get to have an adulterous affair because he desires it. 

A married man doesn't get to enter into polygamy because he desires it.

An unmarried person doesn't get to have sex because he desires it.

And, yes, members of the Church do not get to engage in homosexual behavior, even if they desire it.  

Desires are not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

This board is chalkablock full of threads and posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.  But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fail.

I should clarify something: I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of happiness.  I wish them the best.  However, in my community, in my voluntary association with other like-minded persons who belief in the Restored Gospel, we must come to grips with the reality that God will sometimes command us to do things that may be unpopular or difficult to understand.  Sexual behavior is a big part of life.  An important part.  It makes sense that God would impose regulations about it.  It would also make sense that "The World" might disagree with those regulations.  So we need to take a good hard look at what the prophets and apostles and the scriptures are saying, and make sure we are on the right track.  

I can't speak, in this thread, as to all of the complexities surrounding same-sex attraction. It is a complex and difficult topic. However, I can speak to what the Restored Gospel has said about it, which is that acting on such inclinations is sinful and requires repentance. Likewise, those who succumb to inclinations to engage in behaviors which are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, improper violence, greed, etc.) are also committing sin and must repent.

I see no reason to privilege same-sex attraction and separate it from any of the other types of mortal predilections which, if acted upon, violate the commandments of God. I know that currently the socially popular and politically correct thing to do is capitulate to eroding social mores, ditch the scriptures and the prophets, and to instead go with what the Great-and-Spacious-Building tenants are telling us to do. Sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints are who are listening to these voices, but there are also those that are not, and who as a result are getting an earful of bigotry and hatred for clinging to the Iron Rod.

Well, so be it. To finish up King Benjamin's instruction: "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

I'll end with this encouragement from our Lord: "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

Thanks,

-Smac

Beautiful, Smac!

 

[Okrahomer]

I admit, this has really had an effect on me.  I have three very close family members who are gay.  Each of them knows that their being gay makes no difference to us.  We love them deeply and forever.  So, even though I have always been--even when I was inactive--pretty much TBM about these things; I would be lying if I said that I was 100% comfortable in how we approach LGBTQ issues right now.  I've tried to imagine and think through what (if any) accommodation the Church could make.  As has been noted here and several other places on the board, it is very difficult to see a way ahead.  But of course, I'm no prophet.  I'm just someone who loves his family and wishes, with all his heart that there was a way to help these good people.  At the end of the day, though, I will follow the prophets of God--even while I love and support the gay members of my own family.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I admit, this has really had an effect on me.  I have three very close family members who are gay.  Each of them knows that their being gay makes no difference to us.  We love them deeply and forever.  So, even though I have always been--even when I was inactive--pretty much TBM about these things; I would be lying if I said that I was 100% comfortable in how we approach LGBTQ issues right now.  I've tried to imagine and think through what (if any) accommodation the Church could make.  As has been noted here and several other places on the board, it is very difficult to see a way ahead.  But of course, I'm no prophet.  I'm just someone who loves his family and wishes, with all his heart that there was a way to help these good people.  At the end of the day, though, I will follow the prophets of God--even while I love and support the gay members of my own family.

As a gay person, I wish I heard more of this kind of attitude towards the LGBT community.  You aren't trying to split hairs like some do to justify the church's position.  I respect so much more someone who simply states that they are willing to follow the prophets of God than someone who tries to justify the church position by saying that gays are treated just like everyone else.  From my perspective you can not say that a widower or a married man having an affair or even someone who has some physical reason that prevents marriage is the same thing as demanding celibacy and for most, never having the opportunity to marry their entire life with all the joys and happiness that comes with that blessing simply because they are gay.

I agree that it is difficult to see a way ahead.  I am not someone that is holding my breath that the church may some day accept sexual relations within the bonds of marriage for gay members.  I know that there are a lot of members that feel as you do.  Your voice just doesn't get heard often on this discussion board.  Confrontation, accusations, and vilifying seems to be what some feel is needed more.  Thank you for your post.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Let me lay out a few things to clarify my position (which, I think, largely reflects the teachings of the LDS Church):

I think your articulation of what the average member thinks on this subject is illustrative of the current Mormon cultural reasoning and justification in 2018.  

I’m not that into predictions, but if I had to predict the church’s position on this issue 20 years from now, I would predict the basic premises of these arguments will be considered disavowed theories, similar to the theories once perpetuated about the status of other races not so long ago.  

This is not to make you feel bad, church leaders are responsible for the current thinking on this subject.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is not to make you feel bad ...

I suspect you're safe there.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Also, I know this is unpopular outside the Gospel. But the natural man is an enemy to God. We are all called to put off the natural man and yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man.

The world seeks to change human behavior, Christ changes human nature.

I personally struggle with a lot of natural tendencies that are contrary to the Gospel. The Lord has given me power over some, others, like my anger, I still struggle with. That doesn't mean I am justified if I give into my anger. 

God is with all of us if we seek Him.

Taken to an extreme these ideas of the evil natural person were used in Shakers theology and in ways that degrade.  I like more sex positive messages that can be found.