Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) On 6/21/2018 at 11:33 AM, jkwilliams said: I'm alive because, in the moment before it was too late, I stopped myself. I, for one, am glad you did. Quote No one knew I was suicidal, and had I succeeded, it wouldn't have been anyone's fault for not supporting or loving me. I don't find it helpful at all to blame others for my choices. Indeed. At the risk of derailing the thread [ ] here are some of my thoughts on the matter. https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/suicide-is-not-a-solution-2/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/suicidal-but-sane/ Edited June 23, 2018 by Kenngo1969
Scott Lloyd Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 4 hours ago, california boy said: Is there no burden of proof required from the person making accusations against Dan Reynolds? I don't know what you mean by this. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I, for one, glad you did. Indeed. At the risk of derailing the thread [ ] here are some of my thoughts on the matter. https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/suicide-is-not-a-solution-2/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/suicidal-but-sane/ Thank you. I'll read them when I have a moment. But grandchild #2 was born last night, so I am on my way to Idaho to see him today. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Thank you. I'll read them when I have a moment. But grandchild #2 was born last night, so I am on my way to Idaho to see him today. Congratulations, John. Give him a kiss for me!
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 Here's an interesting interview with Dan Reynolds. Pretty short (1.5 minutes). A transcript: Quote I don't know that I could think of many more opposite worlds than that of a rockstar and that of a Mormon missionary. Honestly, the majority of Imagine Dragon songs are about my conflict with faith. Or emotions. About dealing with guilt, dealing with feeling like I'm not good enough, dealing with, you know, I've been dealing with depression for a lot of years. And so there's a lot of that. Mental health. But I think specifically there was a song. Our second album was called "Smoke and Mirrors," and there was a song on it called "Smoke and Mirrors." The chorus talks about "All I believe, is it a dream that comes crashing down on me? All that I hope, is it just smoke and mirrors?" And that kind of tells the story of my life since I was in sixth grade and started to question the things that I was being taught. Things that didn't align with my heart that I was being taught at church. Whether it was my friend who was gay, and then going to Sunday School and them saying it's a sin to be gay. And then I'm sitting here, feeling like that didn't align with what my heart felt, and what, if there was a god that I wanted to hang out with and party with in heaven, that wasn't the god that I'm down with. And so, I don't know, it's absolutely all through the music. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Here's an interesting interview with Dan Reynolds. Pretty short (1.5 minutes). A transcript: Thanks, -Smac Don't have time to listen right now, but thanks for posting that. Seems like a sincere guy, and I can certainly relate, though it took me a little longer to ever have a "conflict with faith." I think that struggle is essential in developing real and lasting faith.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 17 hours ago, california boy said: Quote I believe the burden of proof is on those who are accusing the Church of causing widespread suicides among youth. Is there no burden of proof required from the person making accusations against Dan Reynolds? Not really. He's the one making the accusations against the Church. All we are doing is criticizing the merits (or lack thereof) of his accusations. On the other hand, if you are questioning whether Reynolds really is making accusations, see, e.g., here, here, here ("Seeing members of the Church spurned for their sexual orientation, what has been most devastating for Reynolds is witnessing skyrocketing rates of teen suicide in Utah as a result of what he believes are the Church’s policies."), here ("Tired of seeing the teenage suicide rate in Utah climb, Dan believes there's a real problem in the Mormon culture and he wants to inspire change."), here ("They expect gay people to be celibate for their whole life, or enter a mixed orientation marriage, which we know is extremely dangerous and leads to suicide and depression and anxiety."), here (same link) ("Youths aren’t happy, there are high reports of anxiety, and the suicide rate is just devastating, and a lot of it has to do with the church going to war on the LGBT community when Prop 8 went down."). The Deseret News recently published a response to similar allegations made by Ellen DeGeneres (made while she was interviewing Dan Reynolds), which response addresses problems with the accusation that the LDS Church is "causing widespread suicides among youth." See here. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Don't have time to listen right now, but thanks for posting that. Seems like a sincere guy, and I can certainly relate, though it took me a little longer to ever have a "conflict with faith." I think that struggle is essential in developing real and lasting faith. I'm not sure what you (or Mr. Reynolds) means by a "conflict with faith." In the law, there is a concept called praesumptio iuris tantum, or a "rebuttable presumption." See here: Quote Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. For example, a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proved guilty. A rebuttable presumption is often associated with prima facie evidence. Without really realizing it, I think this is how I have been proceeding for the last twenty+ years while discussing and studying the Church in adversarial settings (like this board). As a child I did the basics (go to church, say your prayers, read the scriptures). I started to feel what I understood to be promptings from the Spirit. Then I went into the Army, and had more experiences, both in life and with the Spirit. Then I served a mission and had more life experiences and spiritual experiences. Then I came home and had a singular spiritual experience that, for me, "sealed the deal." It created, for me, a presumption that the Church is what it claims to be, that its truth claims are substantively legitimate. It's a rebuttable presumption, but one that I've been operating with for many, many years. I still go to church, and say prayers, and read scriptures. I also serve in the attend the temple. I also have a wonderful wife who has her own testimony that strengthens my own. But I also participate in discussions about my faith in adversarial settings, such as this board, because I need a constant reminder that my "presumption" about the Church is still formative, still "rebuttable." As Hugh Nibley once said: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.” So I'm willing to listen to what the critics have to say, as this keeps me "on my toes." I have also found some real value in deploying my training and experience as an attorney in terms of considering and weighing arguments and evidences as to the Church's history, doctrines, practices, etc. But at the end of the day, all of this still boils down to an exercise in faith. I'm reminded of this scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: I'm not sure what you (or Mr. Reynolds) means by a "conflict with faith." In the law, there is a concept called praesumptio iuris tantum, or a "rebuttable presumption." See here: Without really realizing it, I think this is how I have been proceeding for the last twenty+ years while discussing and studying the Church in adversarial settings (like this board). As a child I did the basics (go to church, say your prayers, read the scriptures). I started to feel what I understood to be promptings from the Spirit. Then I went into the Army, and had more experiences, both in life and with the Spirit. Then I served a mission and had more life experiences and spiritual experiences. Then I came home and had a singular spiritual experience that, for me, "sealed the deal." It created, for me, a presumption that the Church is what it claims to be, that its truth claims are substantively legitimate. It's a rebuttable presumption, but one that I've been operating with for many, many years. I still go to church, and say prayers, and read scriptures. I also serve in the attend the temple. I also have a wonderful wife who has her own testimony that strengthens my own. But I also participate in discussions about my faith in adversarial settings, such as this board, because I need a constant reminder that my "presumption" about the Church is still formative, still "rebuttable." As Hugh Nibley once said: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.” So I'm willing to listen to what the critics have to say, as this keeps me "on my toes." I have also found some real value in deploying my training and experience as an attorney in terms of considering and weighing arguments and evidences as to the Church's history, doctrines, practices, etc. But at the end of the day, all of this still boils down to an exercise in faith. I'm reminded of this scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Thanks, -Smac What I mean is what he described pretty clearly, that sometimes our faith (or at least the tenets of our religion) appears to conflict with our perceptions of reality or your sense of right and wrong. I would imagine most people have such conflicts from time to time, and they have to work through them. I know people who simply deny that there are any such conflicts, but I am convinced that their faith is far less grounded than those who acknowledge that sometimes things arise that force you reevaluate and work through an apparent conflict. From what you wrote above, it sounds as if you agree with me.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: What I mean is what he described pretty clearly, that sometimes our faith (or at least the tenets of our religion) appears to conflict with our perceptions of reality or your sense of right and wrong. Okay. I think I can see that. Just now, jkwilliams said: I would imagine most people have such conflicts from time to time, and they have to work through them. In that sense, yes. I struggled for a bit with the Church's 2015 policy changes, for example. But I worked through it. Just now, jkwilliams said: I know people who simply deny that there are any such conflicts, but I am convinced that their faith is far less grounded than those who acknowledge that sometimes things arise that force you reevaluate and work through an apparent conflict. From what you wrote above, it sounds as if you agree with me. Yes, I agree with you. My wife used to be a bit concerned about me discussing the Church in an adversarial setting. But these days we have some friends and loved ones in the Church who are struggling with their thoughts and perceptions. Same-sex marriage and LGBT issues (social, legal, doctrinal, etc.). Polygamy (in concept and/or in practice). The Priesthood Ban. Mountain Meadows. Church finances. The Joseph Bishop scandal. Unpleasant or even demoralizing personal experiences with a leader in the Church. My wife is not actually pretty happy that I know about these things, and not just from a "faith-promoting" point of view. We have found ways to address these issues without necessariy encountering crises of faith. Similarly, my oldest son is currently serving as a Church Service Missionary in the MTC, where he works in the Referral Center (he and many other missionaries man the "Chat With a Missionary" feature for the Mormon.org website). He and I talk several times a week about the controversial and/or difficult issues that people like to bring up during chats, either because they are idly curious about such things, or because they are trying to provoke a debate, or are trying to disillusion the missionaries, etc. He has become quite adept and handling these sorts of discussions with grace, tact and aplomb, and also with substantive information. I'm mighty proud of him. Thanks, -Smac 1
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Not really. He's the one making the accusations against the Church. All we are doing is criticizing the merits (or lack thereof) of his accusations. On the other hand, if you are questioning whether Reynolds really is making accusations, see, e.g., here, here, here ("Seeing members of the Church spurned for their sexual orientation, what has been most devastating for Reynolds is witnessing skyrocketing rates of teen suicide in Utah as a result of what he believes are the Church’s policies."), here ("Tired of seeing the teenage suicide rate in Utah climb, Dan believes there's a real problem in the Mormon culture and he wants to inspire change."), here ("They expect gay people to be celibate for their whole life, or enter a mixed orientation marriage, which we know is extremely dangerous and leads to suicide and depression and anxiety."), here (same link) ("Youths aren’t happy, there are high reports of anxiety, and the suicide rate is just devastating, and a lot of it has to do with the church going to war on the LGBT community when Prop 8 went down."). The Deseret News recently published a response to similar allegations made by Ellen DeGeneres (made while she was interviewing Dan Reynolds), which response addresses problems with the accusation that the LDS Church is "causing widespread suicides among youth." See here. Thanks, -Smac I don't understand. Why is thinking that there's a correlation between the church's policies and the spike in gay suicides an "attack" or accusation? I would think it would be an attack or accusation if he were saying the church intended to cause the suicide rate to spike. True, there's no hard data linking the two (too soon), just anecdotal evidence from people who deal with gay LDS kids. I wouldn't make a definitive statement either way, but I think it stands to reason that the recent church policy would lead at least some gay Mormon kids to despair, and I know of specific cases where the church's actions and policies have led members to attempt suicide. It's not an attack on the church to say that. Maybe "going to war" is hyperbole, but I certainly agree that the church has placed itself in opposition to the gay community. I guess where you see an attack on the church, I see a man concerned about the well-being of gay kids in the church who is trying to effect some change, even if that means publicly going against the policies of his religion. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and he's certainly not some kind of hateful anti-Mormon. Edited June 22, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. I think I can see that. In that sense, yes. I struggled for a bit with the Church's 2015 policy changes, for example. But I worked through it. Yes, I agree with you. My wife used to be a bit concerned about me discussing the Church in an adversarial setting. But these days we have some friends and loved ones in the Church who are struggling with their thoughts and perceptions. Same-sex marriage and LGBT issues (social, legal, doctrinal, etc.). Polygamy (in concept and/or in practice). The Priesthood Ban. Mountain Meadows. Church finances. The Joseph Bishop scandal. Unpleasant or even demoralizing personal experiences with a leader in the Church. My wife is not actually pretty happy that I know about these things, and not just from a "faith-promoting" point of view. We have found ways to address these issues without necessariy encountering crises of faith. Similarly, my oldest son is currently serving as a Church Service Missionary in the MTC, where he works in the Referral Center (he and many other missionaries man the "Chat With a Missionary" feature for the Mormon.org website). He and I talk several times a week about the controversial and/or difficult issues that people like to bring up during chats, either because they are idly curious about such things, or because they are trying to provoke a debate, or are trying to disillusion the missionaries, etc. He has become quite adept and handling these sorts of discussions with grace, tact and aplomb, and also with substantive information. I'm mighty proud of him. Thanks, -Smac It's funny that my crisis of faith happened when I was taking an 8-month-long break from these kinds of boards. I never needed an adversarial interaction to bolster my faith, but I came here to learn and get the perspective of other people. I quickly discovered I don't like dogmatism on either side, and I discovered that there were reasonable, kind people on both sides who had valid reasons for what they believed.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I don't understand. Why is thinking that there's a correlation between the church's policies and the spike in gay suicides an "attack" or accusation? For the same reason that thinking that there is a correlation between, say, being male and being a rapist. Correlation is not causation. But people like Dan Reynolds and Ellen DeGeneres and the Mama Dragons are claiming it is. And they are going about making public declarations about such things in ways that are corrosive and unhealthy, perhaps even dangerous. Quote I would think it would be an attack or accusation if he were saying the church intended to cause the suicide rate to spike. True, there's no hard data linking the two (too soon), just anecdotal evidence from people who deal with gay LDS kids. I wouldn't make a definitive statement either way, but I think it stands to reason that the recent church policy would lead at least some gay Mormon kids to despair, and I know of specific cases where the church's actions and policies have led members to attempt suicide. I really, honestly question that. You are moving from correlation to causation here. And I don't think that's well-founded. Further, I have some concerns about the adverse influence that arises not from the "the Church's actions and policies," per se, but instead from the over-the-top hostilities and overreactions to "the Church's actions and policies." I've addressed that point previously here: Quote Now that I think on it, much of the hateful rhetoric in this matter published by critics of the Church appears to be only obliquely directed at the LDS Church. I think it may be that the real intended audience is not the Brethren. Nor, perhaps, to the rank-and-file faithful members of the Church (though surely the secondary intent of the rhetoric is to shame and hector them into silence, submission and/or capituation). Rather, this hateful rhetoric appears to be directed at . . . gay LDS teens. It smacks of the type of propaganda I have read about that is fed to young Palestinian children to indoctrinate them to fear and hate Jews. But in this case, gay LDS teens are being indoctrinated to resent and fear the leaders of the LDS Church and their fellow Saints. Critics of the Church have been speaking for the Church, providing "interpretation" of the policy. And that "interpretation" is . . . that the LDS Church and its leaders and its members hate gay people. Hate, hate, hate. If this is so, then that surely would be an incredible stressor to an impressionable young man or woman. And yet I have not seen much in the way of critics cautioning each other against publishing rhetoric designed to alienate Latter-day Saints from their faith. Nevo emphasized this point as made in a recent Archives of Suicide Research article (emphasis added): Quote There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one's religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide. Further, the negative impact felt from leaving one's religion due to conflict has a stronger impact than the positive indirect impact through a reduction in internalized homophobia. So where are the calls for the critics of the Church to ease up in their rhetoric? Or the accusations that they may have created "stressors" in the lives of at-risk youth? And here: Quote To the extent these children feel alienated from the Church, the vast bulk of the blame lies with those who have sensationalized this issue, who have been screaming for years now, falsely declaring that the Mormon Church hates gay people and their children. They have put the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes. They have presumed to speak for the Church to those children, and to then proceed to say horrible and false things to those children. They have sought to put false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church. The great swells of anger and animosity and resentment about the policy changes cannot credibly be attributed to the Church. By way of evidence, I point you to to the Church's nearly identical policy about children coming from polygamous families. That policy has been in place for years, and has been administered at the local level by individual bishops and other leaders who know the individuals involved and work with them with love and encouragement and patience. And the response to this policy from critics and opponents has been . . . essentially nonexistent. No hue and cry. No hysterical denunciations. Now why is that, do you think? Whence the indifference to these children? I attribute it to the lack of available opportunism. Critics and opponents of the LDS Church, in the aggregate, simply don't care about these kids. In contrast, critics and enemies of the Church are using the corollary policy (the one under discussion) to work nonstop to publicly foment anger and discord and hate against the Church by its members and prospective members. Now, these critics and opponents of the LDS Church like to claim that they care about these kids, but I question their sincerity. It's too pat. Too convenient. To jarringly inapposite to the near-total inattentions/neglect demonstrated by the critics and opponents as to the children of polygamous families. Gay rights are presently a Hot Topic, hence the "Think of the children!" angle results in lots of attention and social pressure and criticism against the LDS Church. Cynical exploitation is, I think, the best way to explain the disparate treatment of these two issues (children in gay families v. children in polygamous families) by the Church's critics and opponents (that is "cynical exploitation" for the former). The disparate reactions to these two policies are, in my view, a key indicator that 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. And here: Quote I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church. Perhaps they could stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks. And stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric. And stop with the efforts 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. And stop putting the worst possible spin on the policy. And 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. And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church. And stop working to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church. And perhaps they could give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits. And also 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). I genuinely question the sincerity and good faith of some critics and opponents of the Church who resort to overheated and caustic rhetoric. I question this because these are the same folks who despise the Church and its teachings, and thefore would not seem to have a legitimate basis for complaining about people not joining it. I question these things because these critics apparently don't give two figs about the children from polygamous families who have faced a similar policy for years. I question these things because critics like to position themselves as being concerned about the welfare of children, and yet they then proceed to move heaven and earth to alienate those children from the LDS Church, and to publish declarations that the LDS Church hates their parents. Both the parents and their children are encountering this "overheated and caustic rhetoric," and are understandably perturbed thereby. So I attribute much of the emotional pain and aggravation these folks face to the critics and opponents who have been screaming about it, and using "overheated and caustic rhetoric" about it, and instilling and maintaining and inflaming fear and suspicion and anger in children. It sure would be nice if the critics and the opponents (and the members of the Church) just eased up and let the policy proceed. No need to make things worse by alienating children from a community of faith to which they have ties, or about which they may have an interest. Reconciling seemingly conflicting loyalties to a religious group on one hand and, on the other, to one's parents is hard enough without going online and being told over and over and over about how awful that religious group is, how much they hate your parents, how that religious group enjoys "giving the middle finger to the gay community" (as Brother Bear once put it) and so on. In other words, is there ever going to come a cime when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their own conduct? I also think the observations in the editorial from the Deseret News in responding remarks made by Ellen DeGeneres (when she had Dan Reynolds on her show) are worthwhile. I see the Church doing a lot of introspection and self-evaluation of its treatment of "gay issues." In contrast, I see very little in the way of introspection and self-evaluation from critics and opponents of the Church who insist on starting fires and throwing gasoline on them at every opportunity. Quote It's not an attack on the church to say that. Maybe "going to war" is hyperbole, but I certainly agree that the church has placed itself in opposition to the gay community. The rhetoric against the Church is more than simply hyperbole. It is potentially dangerous (a point raised in the Deseret News editorial). And I disagree that the Church hasn't "placed itself in opposition to the gay community." Quote I guess where you see an attack on the church, I see a man concerned about the well-being of gay kids in the church who is trying to effect some change, even if that means publicly going against the policies of his religion. Good intentions are not sufficient to justify irresponsible, and possibly dangerous, rhetoric. Quote I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and he's certainly not some kind of hateful anti-Mormon. I agree. I don't find his position to be particularly thoughtful or reasoned. He's just a rockstar using his celebrity to advance his personal opinions. That includes, to some extent, him setting himself up as a voice of authority that is superior and alternative to the General Authorities. I find that disconcerting and problematic. But no, he's not "hateful." Thanks, -Smac Edited June 22, 2018 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It's funny that my crisis of faith happened when I was taking an 8-month-long break from these kinds of boards. Yes, I've taken long breaks myself. They're refreshing. 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I never needed an adversarial interaction to bolster my faith, but I came here to learn and get the perspective of other people. Same here. 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I quickly discovered I don't like dogmatism on either side, Nor do I. That's why I come here. Dogmatism doesn't really fly here. Reasoning and evidence and argument are what we strive to achieve. 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: and I discovered that there were reasonable, kind people on both sides who had valid reasons for what they believed. Same here. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: For the same reason that thinking that there is a correlation between, say, being male and being a rapist. Correlation is not causation. But people like Dan Reynolds and Ellen DeGeneres and the Mama Dragons are claiming it is. And they are going about making public declarations about such things in ways that are corrosive and unhealthy, perhaps even dangerous. I really, honestly question that. You are moving from correlation to causation here. And I don't think that's well-founded. Further, I have some concerns about the adverse influence that arises not from the "the Church's actions and policies," per se, but instead from the over-the-top hostilities and overreactions to "the Church's actions and policies." I've addressed that point previously here: And here: And here: I also think the observations in the editorial from the Deseret News in responding remarks made by Ellen DeGeneres (when she had Dan Reynolds on her show) are worthwhile. I see the Church doing a lot of introspection and self-evaluation of its treatment of "gay issues." In contrast, I see very little in the way of introspection and self-evaluation from critics and opponents of the Church who insist on starting fires and throwing gasoline on them at every opportunity. The rhetoric against the Church is more than simply hyperbole. It is potentially dangerous (a point raised in the Deseret News editorial). And I disagree that the Church hasn't "placed itself in opposition to the gay community." Good intentions are not sufficient to justify irresponsible, and possibly dangerous, rhetoric. I agree. I don't find his position to be particularly thoughtful or reasoned. He's just a rockstar using his celebrity to advance his personal opinions. That includes, to some extent, him setting himself up as a voice of authority that is superior and alternative to the General Authorities. I find that disconcerting and problematic. Thanks, -Smac I guess I don't see the danger you do. I've already said my piece about the church's policies, so no need to rehash that. I'll admit that I was horrified when the policies came out (at first I genuinely thought it was a joke, like the Onion)., but I don't believe my reaction was over the top, or motivated by hostility. You managed to work through your feelings about the policy, and that's fine, but some of us really do find the policy to be misguided and harmful. I don't like being lumped in with people who are simply scoring points against the church. Maybe I'm biased because I know some of the Mama Dragons, but I know they have saved lives and I support what they do. I don't criticize people for standing up for what they believe. Your statement about fires and gasoline suggests you think these folks are motivated by animus toward the church, and I will simply say I don't believe that is the case, at least not the people I know. I guess I just wonder how anyone could think that the church's policies have no negative impact at all.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I guess I don't see the danger you do. Consider the obscurity of the Church's 2015 policy changes, which changes would have been virtually unheard of (and henced caused little controversy or distress) but for the rhetoric of the Church's critics and opponents. By way of evidence, I point to the Church's similarly-obscure and nearly-identical policy regarding the children of polygamous households. Virtually no controversy or distress about it. Over a period of many decades. Because there was no protracted campaign by critics and opponents of the Church to sensationalize it, to enflame hostility about it. I think the primary reason why the 2015 policy changes have been controversial and disturbing is because the critics and opponents of the Church have been resorting to over-the-top rhetoric about those changes. Publicly. For years now. Quote I've already said my piece about the church's policies, so no need to rehash that. I'll admit that I was horrified when the policies came out (at first I genuinely thought it was a joke, like the Onion)., but I don't believe my reaction was over the top, or motivated by hostility. I'm glad of that. But much of the responsive rhetoric has been very hostile. Very over-the-top. Very public. As I said previously: "To the extent these children feel alienated from the Church, the vast bulk of the blame lies with those who have sensationalized this issue, who have been screaming for years now, falsely declaring that the Mormon Church hates gay people and their children." Quote You managed to work through your feelings about the policy, and that's fine, but some of us really do find the policy to be misguided and harmful. I understand and respect that. That's not my point. It's the caustic rhetoric responsive to the policy changes that I find problematic. Quote I don't like being lumped in with people who are simply scoring points against the church. Maybe I'm biased because I know some of the Mama Dragons, but I know they have saved lives and I support what they do. I don't criticize people for standing up for what they believe. I encourage you to read the Deseret News piece I linked to earlier. Good intentions do not justify inflammatory rhetoric. And they may very well be causing as many problems as they purport to solve. My impression of the Mama Dragons is quite poor, particularly the irresponsible and toxic behavior of Wendy Montgomery (see, e.g., here). Quote Your statement about fires and gasoline suggests you think these folks are motivated by animus toward the church, and I will simply say I don't believe that is the case, at least not the people I know. I am reminded here of Romans 10: Quote 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Whether it's animus or overzealousness, the net effect - endless inflammatory rhetoric against the Church and its members that may very will be alienating gay LDS kids from their own community when they need it most - is pretty much the same. Quote I guess I just wonder how anyone could think that the church's policies have no negative impact at all. I've never suggested that. Of course the Church's policies can have a negative impact, particularly if the Church's critics and opponents (and misguided and overzealous members who presume to publicly array themselves against the Church) are bound and determined to maximize that negative impact. There are some policies that the Church must enact which are not designed to have direct positive consequences, but to mitigate or avoid negative consequences. That's how I view what happened in 2015. Unpleasant, but necessary. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 22, 2018 by smac97 1
jkwilliams Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Consider the obscurity of the Church's 2015 policy changes, which changes would have been virtually unheard of but for the rhetoric of the Church's critics and opponents. By way of evidence, I point to the Church's similarly-obscure and nearly-identical policy regarding the children of polygamous households. I think the primary reason why the 2015 policy changes have been controversial and disturbing is because the critics and opponents of the Church have been resorting to over-the-top rhetoric about those changes. Publicly. For years now. I'm glad of that. But much of the responsive rhetoric has been very hostile. Very over-the-top. Very public. As I said previously: "To the extent these children feel alienated from the Church, the vast bulk of the blame lies with those who have sensationalized this issue, who have been screaming for years now, falsely declaring that the Mormon Church hates gay people and their children." I understand and respect that. That's not my point. It's the caustic rhetoric responsive to the policy changes that I find problematic. I encourage you to read the Deseret News piece I linked to earlier. Good intentions do not justify inflammatory rhetoric. And they may very well be causing as many problems as they purport to solve. My impression of the Mama Dragons is quite poor, particularly the irresponsible and toxic behavior of Wendy Montgomery (see, e.g., here). I am reminded here of Romans 10: Whether it's animus or overzealousness, the net effect - endless inflammatory rhetoric against the Church and its members that may very will be alienating gay LDS kids from their own community when they need it most - is pretty much the same. I've never suggested that. Of course the Church's policies can have a negative impact, particularly if the Church's critics and opponents (and misguided and overzealous members who presume to publicly array themselves against the Church) are bound and determined to maximize that negative impact. Thanks, -Smac I think the reason the policy has caused so many problems is that it applies the same (well, not the same, actually) policy to same-sex couples that it does to polygamous families, though the situations are drastically different. It caused immediate problems in a lot of families (several of whom I know personally), and no matter the intention, it drew a line in the sand that made gay members feel unwanted in the church. Even if no one criticized the church or said they "hate gay people," the policy would have become public knowledge, and gay families trying to maintain a relationship with their LDS ex-spouses and families were going to find that much more difficult. And kids who realize they are gay are going to know they have few choices in the church. Maybe some people's rhetoric has hurt, but I don't believe it's the prime reason gay kids feel alienated from the church. The policy did that all by itself. Even before the policy change, gay kids were likely to be alienated from their families because of the rejection they felt when they came out. A significant percentage of homeless youth in Utah are gay Mormons, and that was true before the policy change. I can't speak for anyone else, but the only reason I talk about the policy at all is that I hope it will be changed. That seems to be the motivation of Mama Dragons and folks like Dan Reynolds (I don't know Wendy Montgomery). And I don't think his rhetoric has been particularly inflammatory, except the bit about going to war. I know a lady who is involved in Mama Dragons (she and her husband lived in Bolivia when I was there, and they took care of us missionaries in many ways). She is an active, believing member of the church, and it hurts her to be called disloyal or even anti-Mormon. She simply wants things to change, and in the meantime she is doing everything she can to support gay kids in the church who are struggling. I know how hard it is for her to publicly disagree with the church she loves, but I honor her for what she does. She has personally saved lives. In the end, I reject your belief that those of us who oppose the church's policy are "bound and determined to maximize that negative impact." That is just as wrong as saying the church intends for gay kids to commit suicide. That kind of demonization has no place in a reasonable discussion. For the record, I do think the church's policy was motivated by good intentions and wasn't intended to harm anyone.
smac97 Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think the reason the policy has caused so many problems is that it applies the same (well, not the same, actually) policy to same-sex couples that it does to polygamous families, though the situations are drastically different. I don't think they are "drastically different." To the contrary, they have quite a few similarities. Quote It caused immediate problems in a lot of families (several of whom I know personally), and no matter the intention, it drew a line in the sand that made gay members feel unwanted in the church. Again, I think the line-drawing was largely attributable to the overheated rhetoric in response to the policy, rather than to the policy itself. Moreover, how may active Latter-day Saints had entered into same-sex marriages prior to 2015? How many genuinely expected the Church to be hunky-dory with members of the Church entering into same-sex marriage? How many children being raised in a gay couple's household are candidates for baptism? The answers to these questions, I think is "not very many." And even then, there could (and should) have been all sorts of ways to address these difficulties with tact and compassion and patience. Instead, we've had a scorched-earth campaign from the Church's critics and opponents (and even some members - think Wendy Montgomery) for years now. How may active Latter-day Saints enter into polygamy? How many genuinely expected the Church to be hunky-dory with members of the Church entering into polygamy? How many children being raised in polygamous household are candidates for baptism? So yeah, the similarites between the two situations are there. Quote Even if no one criticized the church or said they "hate gay people," the policy would have become public knowledge, and gay families trying to maintain a relationship with their LDS ex-spouses and families were going to find that much more difficult. And kids who realize they are gay are going to know they have few choices in the church. Again, there could (and should) have been all sorts of ways to address these difficulties with tact and compassion and patience. Instead, we've had a scorched-earth campaign from the Church's critics and opponents (and even some members - think Wendy Montgomery) for years now. Quote Maybe some people's rhetoric has hurt, but I don't believe it's the prime reason gay kids feel alienated from the church. It's hard to say in any definitive way. But I can say, with some confidence, that the caustic rhetoric for the last several years has not been coming from the Church at all, and instead has been coming from its critics and opponents (and its Wendy Montgomerys). In any event, my point is that the caustic rhetoric is not necessary at all. It's not constructive. If anything, it's only making things worse. Quote The policy did that all by itself. No, it didn't. I think much of the alienation comes from the hateful rhetoric being deployed against the Church. 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. Quote Even before the policy change, gay kids were likely to be alienated from their families because of the rejection they felt when they came out. Which "rejections" contravene the teachings of the Church. Quote A significant percentage of homeless youth in Utah are gay Mormons, and that was true before the policy change. Again, this contravenes the teachings of the Church. Quote I can't speak for anyone else, but the only reason I talk about the policy at all is that I hope it will be changed. And in the main, I appreciate your measured treatment of this issue. I contrast your approach with the hateful, caustic, bombastic stuff that has been playing out in the public sphere for years now. This is the stuff that I find problematic. This is the stuff that is likely being read by gay LDS teens. This is the stuff that is unhealthy and unhelpful. Quote That seems to be the motivation of Mama Dragons and folks like Dan Reynolds (I don't know Wendy Montgomery). And the motivation of Emma Sukowicz was to bring attention to the problem of sexual assault on college campuses, which would have been fine. And yet the means she used, making false allegations of rape, were extremely damaging. Is it possible that the irresponsible rhetoric coming from people like the Mama Dragons and Dan Reynolds is likewise damaging? I think so. Again, I direct your attention to the Deseret News article I referenced earlier. The LDS Church has done a lot to re-evaluate its position and treatment and approach to LGBT issues. I think that is goot. But is there ever going to come a time when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their conduct? Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Neither Wendy Montgomery nor Dan Reynolds strike me as particularly thoughtful or introspective. Passionate? Yes. Boatloads of it. But thoughtful? Reasoned? Fair? Nope. Quote And I don't think his rhetoric has been particularly inflammatory, except the bit about going to war. He's not nearly as inflammatory as others have been. I'll grant that. That doesn't excuse his irresponsible statements and absurd public demands, though. Quote I know a lady who is involved in Mama Dragons (she and her husband lived in Bolivia when I was there, and they took care of us missionaries in many ways). She is an active, believing member of the church, and it hurts her to be called disloyal or even anti-Mormon. I think the Mama Dragons are overzealous. Big time. Wendy Montgomery has been one of the public faces for the Mama Dragons for quite a while, and yet her behavior has been very troubling (see my previous link about her). I would like to see the Mama Dragons address those concerns and behavior reasonably and responsibly. Perhaps they are to a great extent, but they have Wendy M messing up perceptions about them. Quote She simply wants things to change, and in the meantime she is doing everything she can to support gay kids in the church who are struggling. I admire the ends. I question some of their means (particularly Wendy Montgomery's). There are all sorts of Mormons who share the desire to help those who are struggling and to improve things in the Church. So why is it, then, that the Mama Dragons have this in common with other Mormons, and yet are perceived as "disloyal or even anti-Mormon?" Quote I know how hard it is for her to publicly disagree with the church she loves, but I honor her for what she does. She has personally saved lives. I am glad to hear that. Quote In the end, I reject your belief that those of us who oppose the church's policy are "bound and determined to maximize that negative impact." That is just as wrong as saying the church intends for gay kids to commit suicide. That kind of demonization has no place in a reasonable discussion. I was referencing those people who have resorted to irresponsible / inflammatory / hateful rhetoric in opposing the Church's policy. I thought I had been clear on that, but perhaps not. My apologies. Quote For the record, I do think the church's policy was motivated by good intentions and wasn't intended to harm anyone. And it's here to stay, I think. Just like the corollary policy pertaining to children in polygamous households. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 22, 2018 by smac97 1
california boy Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know what you mean by this. Scott, as I understand your position, it is your OPINION that the policies the church has towards gay members have in no way caused any suicide amongst Mormon teens. You have nothing to support your opinion, and you feel you are completely entitled to have that opinion without any documented support. And I agree. You. do have that right to hold that opinion. You have been quite vocal about expressing that opinion. Dan Reynolds has a different OPINION. He believes that some of the church policies directed at gay members has indeed caused a spike in suicide rates in the state of Utah and elsewhere. He also has no clear data to support his opinion. But like you, he has every right to hold that opinion and do what he believes he can do to help make a change. Just like you, Dan Reynolds is trying to do something to defend his opinion. He started Love Loud, (which I might remind you the church supported). He has now done this film. He is doing something to try and fix a problem that he believes in. Neither one of you have any data to support your opinion. If you demand that he have support for the opinion he holds. Should not you be required to show data to support the opinion you hold? To my knowledge, there has yet to be a study tracking the relationship between gay Mormons and suicide rate. If you have such a study, then I would love to review it. Dan Reynolds also does not have such a study. Until there is some real data on this issue, then BOTH of you are just expressing an opinion. And neither opinion should be dismissed because of a lack of a study.
kllindley Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I guess I don't see the danger you do. I've already said my piece about the church's policies, so no need to rehash that. I'll admit that I was horrified when the policies came out (at first I genuinely thought it was a joke, like the Onion)., but I don't believe my reaction was over the top, or motivated by hostility. You managed to work through your feelings about the policy, and that's fine, but some of us really do find the policy to be misguided and harmful. I don't like being lumped in with people who are simply scoring points against the church. Maybe I'm biased because I know some of the Mama Dragons, but I know they have saved lives and I support what they do. I don't criticize people for standing up for what they believe. Your statement about fires and gasoline suggests you think these folks are motivated by animus toward the church, and I will simply say I don't believe that is the case, at least not the people I know. I guess I just wonder how anyone could think that the church's policies have no negative impact at all. I don't think it's animus on the part of most Mama Dragons. I might liken it more to pouring water onto a grease fire. Most people do that in a panic response, not realizing that they are going to make it worse. Really, I can't emphasize how strongly I recommend reading Jacob Hess's writing at flirtingwithcuriosity.org He explains that really well. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 15 hours ago, smac97 said: Okay. I think I can see that. In that sense, yes. I struggled for a bit with the Church's 2015 policy changes, for example. But I worked through it. Yes, I agree with you. My wife used to be a bit concerned about me discussing the Church in an adversarial setting. But these days we have some friends and loved ones in the Church who are struggling with their thoughts and perceptions. Same-sex marriage and LGBT issues (social, legal, doctrinal, etc.). Polygamy (in concept and/or in practice). The Priesthood Ban. Mountain Meadows. Church finances. The Joseph Bishop scandal. Unpleasant or even demoralizing personal experiences with a leader in the Church. My wife is not actually pretty happy that I know about these things, and not just from a "faith-promoting" point of view. We have found ways to address these issues without necessariy encountering crises of faith. Similarly, my oldest son is currently serving as a Church Service Missionary in the MTC, where he works in the Referral Center (he and many other missionaries man the "Chat With a Missionary" feature for the Mormon.org website). He and I talk several times a week about the controversial and/or difficult issues that people like to bring up during chats, either because they are idly curious about such things, or because they are trying to provoke a debate, or are trying to disillusion the missionaries, etc. He has become quite adept and handling these sorts of discussions with grace, tact and aplomb, and also with substantive information. I'm mighty proud of him. Thanks, -Smac Good for you and your family. By the way, I think I spotted a typo in your post that you would want to fix. You said, "My wife is not actually pretty happy that I know about these things. ..." I think you meant, "My wife is now actually pretty happy. ..." A single mis-typed letter can totally reverse the intended meaning, as in this case.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, california boy said: Scott, as I understand your position, it is your OPINION that the policies the church has towards gay members have in no way caused any suicide amongst Mormon teens. You have nothing to support your opinion, and you feel you are completely entitled to have that opinion without any documented support. And I agree. You. do have that right to hold that opinion. You have been quite vocal about expressing that opinion. Dan Reynolds has a different OPINION. He believes that some of the church policies directed at gay members has indeed caused a spike in suicide rates in the state of Utah and elsewhere. He also has no clear data to support his opinion. But like you, he has every right to hold that opinion and do what he believes he can do to help make a change. Just like you, Dan Reynolds is trying to do something to defend his opinion. He started Love Loud, (which I might remind you the church supported). He has now done this film. He is doing something to try and fix a problem that he believes in. Neither one of you have any data to support your opinion. If you demand that he have support for the opinion he holds. Should not you be required to show data to support the opinion you hold? To my knowledge, there has yet to be a study tracking the relationship between gay Mormons and suicide rate. If you have such a study, then I would love to review it. Dan Reynolds also does not have such a study. Until there is some real data on this issue, then BOTH of you are just expressing an opinion. And neither opinion should be dismissed because of a lack of a study. I don't think I've ever expressed the opinion you ascribe to me here. And Reynolds's opinion, if that's what you want to call it, amounts to a pretty serious accusation. Serious accusations cry out for evidence. If no persuasive evidence is forthcoming, or if proffered evidence has been persuasively rebutted, the "opinion" does not deserve to be taken seriously. It might, on the contrary, warrant being denounced as scurrilous or harmful. Edited June 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Kenngo1969 Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) On 6/21/2018 at 6:42 PM, california boy said: Unfortunately, the church has made it a choose one or the other issue. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969 to emphasize what I'm replying to.] I certainly would be more involved in at least attending church occasionally. But when I have in the past, disparaging remarks similar to some posted on this very thread were still very much present. That combined with the October policy clearly makes it difficult for involvement in the church unless you are willing to strictly live by their rules. I have no complaint in them dealing with gays in that way. It is their church and they must run it the way they see fit. But the line in the sand is pretty sharp. Every gay Mormon knows where that line is. It is not like those outside the church are revealing any secret to them. What I believe is important, and a message they certainly are not going to get from the church, is that you can have both a fulfilling and spiritual life outside of the church. Whatever the choice they make, to stay or go, is completely their choice. I certainly honor and support them no matter what that choice is. But they do deserve to be fully informed on all options. I believe it is those who think they have no options that are the ones we need to worry about. I'm sorry for any disparaging remarks to which you have been subjected, and for any disparaging remarks to which anyone in a similar situation has been subjected. I'm sorry you don't feel more welcome at church. We can all do better ensuring that we treat one another more as Christ would treat them, including in what we say to them or about them and how we say it. I can understand why you view the issue the way you do, since you see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as simply another human-made, human-run organization (well-intentioned, perhaps, but still human-made and human-run). And of course, your view of what God expects of you and the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ about what God expects of His children are somewhat different. A Ud. le toca. (To each, his or her own.) Time will tell who's right. (In any event, such judgment isn't likely to be an all-or-nothing (or even a most-or-nothing) thing. God has a capacity for fairness which will astound any mortal: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/* *Yes, I know I've posted "Toward Interreligious Oneness" a billion times. See the addenda below it, which is why I'm posting it in this thread. But for someone who doesn't think that the Church of Jesus Christ is simply a well-intentioned but human-made and human-run organization, who believes that, ultimately, God actually is in charge of it, it's not an either-or issue. Who can blame anyone who's slightly bewildered, though (which, at times, includes all of us, and, often, more than slightly)? Even though there was a first act, we don't remember it, and even though there's a third act, it hasn't happened yet (and the Being directing the drama has a capacity for knowledge, perspective, empathy, mercy, and so on that we mere mortals can't even fathom. While, under those circumstances (we don't remember the first act and the third act hasn't happened yet), I can't blame anyone for thinking that the second act obviously is the most important one, with respect, I disagree: while I'm not going to attempt to plumb the endless depths of God's Inscrutable Mind by attempting to assign specific premortal causes to specific mortal effects ("Master, who did sin, Kenngo1969 or his parents, that he was born with Cerebral Palsy and with something of a genetic predisposition toward major depression?" or "Master, who did sin, California Boy or his parents, that he was born gay?"), generally, I do believe that what happened in premortality has some bearing on mortality, and of course, what happens in mortality will have a bearing on what happens in the life to come. But I also believe that, as with most dramas, what happens in the first act and what happens in the second act isn't most important, but, rather, what happens in the third act: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). And there are those gay and lesbian members (few and far between though they may be) who haven't concluded that, "Well, I can be gay or I can be Mormon, but I cannot be both," who find fulfillment in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html Edited June 23, 2018 by Kenngo1969
california boy Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I'm sorry for any disparaging remarks to which you have been subjected, and for any disparaging remarks to which anyone in a similar situation has been subjected. I'm sorry you don't feel more welcome at church. We can all do better ensuring that we treat one another more as Christ would treat them, including in what we say to them or about them and how we say it. No, I don't feel at all welcomed in the church. I don't feel welcomed to be on this board by those that feel every post is some kind of challenge to defend the church to the point that they don't even listen to what I am saying. It is just too easy to label me as being anti-Mormon. Something that I take quite offense to being called. It is just too easy to give two thumbs up when a poster maligns me personally. And no, I don't think you have ever said anything to me that indicated that you thought there was a place for me in the church. So when these kids who are having enough of a struggle understanding who they are and how they might possibly fit not only in the church, but in life, I can understand and identify with their despair. I know exactly what that is like. I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old. I spent my entire adolescence and early adulthood trying to figure out what that meant for me. 3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I can understand why you view the issue the way you do, since you see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as simply another human-made, human-run organization (well-intentioned, perhaps, but still human-made and human-run). And of course, your view of what God expects of you and the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ about what God expects of His children are somewhat different. A Ud. le toca. (To each, his or her own.) Time will tell who's right. (In any event, such judgment isn't likely to be an all-or-nothing (or even a most-or-nothing) thing. God has a capacity for fairness which will astound any mortal: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/ https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/* *Yes, I know I've posted "Toward Interreligious Oneness" a billion times. See the addenda below it, which is why I'm posting it in this thread. But for someone who doesn't think that the Church of Jesus Christ is simply a well-intentioned but human-made and human-run organization, who believes that, ultimately, God actually is in charge of it, it's not an either-or issue. Who can blame anyone who's slightly bewildered, though (which, at times, includes all of us, and, often, more than slightly)? Even though there was a first act, we don't remember it, and even though there's a third act, it hasn't happened yet (and the Being directing the drama has a capacity for knowledge, perspective, empathy, mercy, and so on that we mere mortals can't even fathom. While, under those circumstances (we don't remember the first act and the third act hasn't happened yet), I can't blame anyone for thinking that the second act obviously is the most important one, with respect, I disagree: while I'm not going to attempt to plumb the endless depths of God's Inscrutable Mind by attempting to assign specific premortal causes to specific mortal effects ("Master, who did sin, Kenngo1969 or his parents, that he was born with Cerebral Palsy and with something of a genetic predisposition toward major depression?" or "Master, who did sin, California Boy or his parents, that he was born gay?"), generally, I do believe that what happened in premortality has some bearing on mortality, and of course, what happens in mortality will have a bearing on what happens in the life to come. But I also believe that, as with most dramas, what happens in the first act and what happens in the second act isn't most important, but, rather, what happens in the third act: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). And there are those gay and lesbian members (few and far between though they may be) who haven't concluded that, "Well, I can be gay or I can be Mormon, but I cannot be both," who find fulfillment in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html Kenngo1969, I read your articles. and honestly you have it completely wrong. I don't think you have ever really thought about what I have been posting on this site since 2008, I don't know whether the claims of the Mormon Church are true or not. My logical mind says probably not. My heart wants to believe it is true. But for me, even if the Church is true, so what? Not only is there no place in the church for me in this life, there is no place for me in the Celestial Kingdom. Since all ordinances are only for those entering into the Celestial Kingdom, then whether the church has authority from God to perform these ordinances are of no value for me. So what is left that would draw me to the church? I have no interest in the promises made for the Third Act. When that also gets taken off the table as something you are suppose to strive for, then what I do on earth has little consequence. And yes, I a completely ready for whatever judgement God issues towards me. I trust Him. Maybe I was born gay because God knew that the Celestial Kingdom was no place for me. The promises that are held to those that achieve that lofty goal are empty promises for me. And I am totally at peace with that. I am happy for Tom Christofferson If he has found happiness in the church then good for him. I am happy for any person gay or straight, who finds a place in the church. But his path is not my path. And no, I don't care one bit what made me gay. Even those scriptures have zero meaning or importance for me. I get told over and over again that God gives us weakness to make us strong. The problem is, I don't think being gay is some kind of weakness. It is just a different way I connect with people romantically. I thank God for making me gay. I have learned so many valuable lessons from having this perspective.
california boy Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't think I've ever expressed the opinion you ascribe to me here. Do you think you have ever expressed an opinion that makes someone who is gay feel like there is a place in the church for them if they choose to have a partner? 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: And Reynolds's opinion, if that's what you want to call it, amounts to a pretty serious accusation. Serious accusations cry out for evidence. If no persuasive evidence is forthcoming, or if proffered evidence has been persuasively rebutted, the "opinion" does not deserve to be taken seriously. It might, on the contrary, warrant being denounced as scurrilous or harmful. Dan Reynolds has an opinion. He thinks the suicide rate among Mormons are way too high. But this is the deal. He doesn't just express his opinion, he actually is doing something about it. He is trying to help those kids find a place in the church. And if not in the church, then that doesn't mean they are not loved and cherished by at least him. Whether you take his statements as serious accusations against the church is your choice. Somehow I think the church will survive. He is certainly not alone in that opinion. And since there is no data to dispute that opinion, then what does it really matter? He at least is addressing the issue, If you think he is addressing it incorrectly then DO SOMETHING ABOUT how you think the issue should be addressed. I think multiple approaches may. be just what is needed. What is not needed is to do nothing but complain about the efforts of someone else to curb the tide of suicides. Because what we can all agree on is there is a problem.
Recommended Posts