Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your disagreement is not well informed.

Oh brother.  I've explained why I feel as I do.  I know the definition of "good faith".  However, I have only seen smac use that term as I've narrowly defined it.  By your and smac's definition, the majority of california boy's posts are also done "in good faith":

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Good faith (Latin: bona fides), in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.

So, let's move on....

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You've provided nothing by way of reasoned analysis or explanation. 

Of course I have (you just disagree).  

I simply have seen no explanation that has been given so far (for the implementation of the policy) that makes good sense to me or even justifies the harm it's caused.  I've seen nothing good come from it, but I personally know many members who it has caused them pain and even contention within their families.  I have not seen any good that balances out the harm.

We can each only speak from our own personal experiences.  Maybe you have actually personally seen some good come from the policy.  You have related none (other than continually quoting what the leaders have stated), from what I've seen.  You support their statements 100% and that's fine.  However, I actually believe that they are fallible and that this policy was a mistake on their part.

We will just have to disagree.    

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh brother.  I've explained why I feel as I do.  I know the definition of "good faith".  However, I have only seen smac use that term as I've narrowly defined it. 

I've invited you to cite even one example. Apparently you refuse to do so. Your choice.

Quote

By your and smac's definition, the majority of california boy's posts are also done "in good faith".

In this instance, he posed a question, and Smac responded in good faith. CB blew off his response. That doesn't strike me as good-faith behavior.

Quote

So, let's move on....

Fine with me. I just wanted to note that your disagreement is not well informed.

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've invited you to cite even one example. Apparently you refuse to do so. Your choice.

That's funny.....but, ok.  I won't derail the thread by quoting the hundreds of posts made by smac using the terms "good faith" as a way of expressing support for church leaders and teachings. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

  I've seen nothing good come from it, but I personally know many members who it has caused pain and even contention within their families.  I have not seen any good that balances out the harm.  

What is the nature of the "pain and contention"? Does it merely stem from resentment over the policy having been implemented, or are you personally acquainted with instances in which parents in gay households wanted to have their children baptized but were precluded from doing so because of the policy?

Link to post
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That's funny.....but, ok.  I won't derail the thread by quoting the hundreds of posts made by smac using the terms "good faith" as a way of expressing support for church leaders and teachings. 

I only inquired if you could cite even one. That shouldn't be hard if you have a pool of "hundreds" to choose from.

But if it makes you uncomfortable, by all means let's move on.

 

Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Of course I have (you just disagree).  

Well, no.  I am fine with having disagreements over substantive reasoning.

I just haven't seen much in the way of substantive reasoning.  Just conclusory "it makes no sense to me" statements, repeated personal opinion, and loaded rhetorical questions.

Just now, ALarson said:

I simply have seen no explanation that has been given so far (for the implementation of the policy) that makes good sense to me or even justifies the harm it's caused. 

"That makes good sense to me" is pretty much all you have to offer.  I'll leave you to it, then.

Just now, ALarson said:

I've seen nothing good come from it, but personally know many members who it caused pain and even contention within their families.  I have not seen any good that balances out the harm.

For the third time, I decline to frame the policy in a "what good has come from it" context.  The Church has policies in place for all sorts of difficult or controversial things.  It's weird to frame the enactment and application of those policies in a "what good has come from it" kind of way.  (For the record, I can think of some "good results.")

Just now, ALarson said:

We can each only speak from our own personal experiences. 

That's simply not so.  We can speak about a lot more than that.

Weirdly, just a few months ago, you and I were having a nearly identical discussion about this issue.  I said: "I'll defer to the explanation from the Brethren.  None of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes, which can just as easily be dismissed as 'ring{ing} pretty hollow.'"  You responded: "I disagree that 'none of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes'."

So which is it?  "We can each only speak from our own personal experiences" or "I disagree that 'none of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes'"?

The General Authorities have provided some substantive explanation as to how they arrived at the decision to implement the policy changes.  We could discuss those.  But . . . we're not.

Just now, ALarson said:

Maybe you have actually personally seen some good come from the policy.  

You and I had a similar discussion on this issue a few months ago, during which you wanted to focus solely on anecdotes rather than on the explanations given by the brethren:

Quote
Quote

Can you name one instance where there was a case of "real harm" taking place or do you just believe there were "potential harms"?  

I'll defer to the explanation from the Brethren.  None of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes, which can just as easily be dismissed as "ring{ing} pretty hollow."

Quote

Has our Prophet or any leaders given any specific examples of real members who were experiencing "real harm" that made it necessary to implement this new policy?  

Moving the goalposts, I see.

Elder Christofferson has provided quite a bit of clarification and explanation.  Not good enough.

Pres. Nelson thereafter provided further clarification and explanation.  Still not good enough.

Now you want "specific examples," which can then immediately be discounted as mere anecdotes.  Still not good enough.

There is no end to this.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is the nature of the "pain and contention"? Does it merely stem from resentment over the policy having been implemented, or are you personally acquainted with instances in which parents in gay households wanted to have their children baptized but were precluded from doing so because of the policy?

Most of the pain that I have personally seen were within families with shared custody.  The clarification did help, but it did cause more resentment and pain between the kids and their parent who was gay.

I've also seen it just simply cause pain in those who are gay and trying to live a celibate life and remain active.  This new policy hurt even those members.  One of them is really struggling to even stay active at this point (and he was very active prior to the policy being leaked).  This is very personal for them.

There are others hurt too that I know of....but these are just a couple of personal examples.  I know of a couple of families who have stopped attending over it as well.  I think there is a net negative vs. anything positive coming from the policy.  

You may have seen otherwise.  I can only relate what I've experienced and seen.  

Have you personally seen anything good come into someone's life because this policy was implemented (I'm not asking for a quote from a leader, but your own words regarding your own personal experiences from someone you know)?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 4
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But if it makes you uncomfortable, by all means let's move on.

"Uncomfortable"? :lol:

No.

I'm just not going to derail this thread any further regarding that.  I made my point and gave my opinion.  Out of respect to Daniel, let's move on....

Edited by ALarson
Link to post
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"That makes good sense to me" is pretty much all you have to offer. 

Not true.  I responded and gave you examples of why I feel the explanations that have been given for the policy make no sense.   You may not agree or may reject my reasoning or examples, but I've given them and stand by how I feel.  I'm open to changing my mind too....but so far, I've seen nothing that convinces me that the policy was necessary.

( I'm off of here now....gotta get some work done! )

 

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3
Link to post
14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Most of the pain that I have personally seen were within families with shared custody.  The clarification did help, but it did cause more resentment and pain between the kids and their parent who was gay.

I've also seen it just simply cause pain in those who are gay and trying to live a celibate life and remain active.  This new policy hurt even those members.  One of them is really struggling to even stay active at this point (and he was very active prior to the policy being leaked).  This is very personal for them.

There are others hurt too that I know of....but these are just a couple of personal examples.  I know of a couple of families who have stopped attending over it as well.  I think there is a net negative vs. anything positive coming from the policy.  

You may have seen otherwise.  I can only relate what I've experienced and seen.  

Have you personally seen anything good come into someone's life because this policy was implemented (I'm not asking for a quote from a leader, but your own words regarding your own personal experiences from someone you know)?

This sort of anecdotal stuff doesn't really have much value.  

I have a friend who was somewhat active, but was disfellowshipped.  He has since become completely inactive.  That's bad. 

I have another friend who was raised in the Church, served a mission, when to BYU, etc.  He engaged in conduct that resulted in his excommunication.  He is now completely inactive.  That's bad.

I have another friend who was disfellowshipped, and while under discipline engaged in further improper conduct.  That's bad.

So, by your based-on-anecdotes reckoning, the Church should not discipline members.  Ever.

  1. Church does X.
  2. X results in adverse consequences to someone.
  3. X is therefore necessarily bad and incomprehensible, and should be abandoned.

That strikes me as simplistic and naive.  

Again, I have a friend who was convicted of serious criminal charges and incarcerated for several years.  His incarceration created some very substantial and real difficulty for his wife and children.  By your reckoning, then, the only course of action is to rescind criminal statutes or else never enforce them.  Do you see that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This sort of anecdotal stuff doesn't really have much value.  

I have a friend who was somewhat active, but was disfellowshipped.  He has since become completely inactive.  That's bad. 

I have another friend who was raised in the Church, served a mission, when to BYU, etc.  He engaged in conduct that resulted in his excommunication.  He is now completely inactive.  That's bad.

I have another friend who was disfellowshipped, and while under discipline engaged in further improper conduct.  That's bad.

So, by your based-on-anecdotes reckoning, the Church should not discipline members.  Ever.

  1. Church does X.
  2. X results in adverse consequences to someone.
  3. X is therefore necessarily bad and incomprehensible, and should be abandoned.

That strikes me as simplistic and naive.  

Again, I have a friend who was convicted of serious criminal charges and incarcerated for several years.  His incarceration created some very substantial and real difficulty for his wife and children.  By your reckoning, then, the only course of action is to rescind criminal statutes or else never enforce them.  Do you see that?

Thanks,

-Smac

It struck you as simplistic and naive because you missed (or ignored) the depth of the point ALarson was making.

  • Like 4
Link to post
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This sort of anecdotal stuff doesn't really have much value.  

I was asked "What was the nature of the 'pain and contention'"?

I responded with what I have personally experienced (the only way I could respond, IMO).  I told of what is going on with a couple of families in my own ward (who I have actually counseled with regarding this) and also an experience I'm having with a personal friend.

If you find no "value" in that, what response would you find "value" in?

General statements from church leaders as you've provided?  Or what exactly?

(I really do have to try to get some work done....I'll check back later....just thought your response was odd.)

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2
Link to post
23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It struck you as simplistic and naive because you missed (or ignored) the depth of the point ALarson was making.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was asked "What was the nature of the 'pain and contention'"?

I responded with what I have personally experienced (the only way I could respond, IMO).  I told of what is going on with a couple of families in my own ward (who I have actually counseled with regarding this) and also an experience I'm having with a personal friend.

If you find no "value" in that, what response would you find "value" in?

I find little "value" in anecdotes as the primary or exclusive basis for criticizing the policy changes.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Link to post

Second request: please move these in-depth discussions about the policy to another thread. I don’t want to see this one crash, burn, and get closed due to a non-central topic. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post
1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Second request: please move these in depth discussions about the policy to another thread.

Will do.  Sorry.

Link to post

Another news item on Dan Reynolds:

Quote

The Mormon frontman of the Imagine Dragons rock band hopes the Sundance Film Festival documentary that follows his journey to becoming an advocate for LGBT Mormon youth triggers real change by his religion's leaders and puts an end to what he calls "shaming" of gay and lesbian kids in the religion.

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."

Quote

Singer Dan Reynolds said he and director Don Argott made the film "Believer" to put "a face to the faceless and a voice to the voiceless." His goal is to show leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that opposition to same-sex relationships is damaging the self-worth of gay, lesbian and transgender kids.

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."

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."

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

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.

Quote

In the film, Argott follows Reynolds and former Mormon Tyler Glenn, a gay lead singer of Neon Trees, as they plan the LoveLoud Festival, a concert last summer in Utah headlined by Imagine Dragons that raised funds for organizations supporting at-risk LGBT youth.

The Mormon church supported the festival, praising organizers for bringing "people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God's children."

Church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement Tuesday that the religion's support of that festival was part of a message that's not new for the religion.

"We have repeatedly denounced cruelty, rejection, bullying, and the mistreatment of others," Hawkins said. "We lobbied in support of Utah's strong antidiscrimination laws. The church's message is one of hope, compassion, and understanding. We want our LGBT brothers and sisters to know that there is a place for them and their contributions in the church. There is more to do and we remain fully committed to these efforts moving forward."

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

Meanwhile, here's Mr. Reynolds' response:

Quote

Reynolds, 30, said in an interview this week that "platitudes" from church officials about love for LGBT Mormons and telling them "there's a place for them" isn't enough.

He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.

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

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
7 minutes 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."

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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

 

Edited by JulieM
Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Most of the pain that I have personally seen were within families with shared custody.  The clarification did help, but it did cause more resentment and pain between the kids and their parent who was gay.

So I'm not sure I understand. Was this a situation where the child couldn't be baptized because he was living primarily with a gay parent? And if so, does the gay parent want the child baptized or not? You say, "The clarification did help." How did it help if it caused more resentment and pain?

Quote

 

I've also seen it just simply cause pain in those who are gay and trying to live a celibate life and remain active.  This new policy hurt even those members.  One of them is really struggling to even stay active at this point (and he was very active prior to the policy being leaked).  This is very personal for them.

There are others hurt too that I know of....but these are just a couple of personal examples.  I know of a couple of families who have stopped attending over it as well.  I think there is a net negative vs. anything positive coming from the policy.  

 

So it seems you are saying the new policy is bad because some people don't like it. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to condemn it. A lot of policies rub some individuals the wrong way, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Second request: please move these in-depth discussions about the policy to another thread. I don’t want to see this one crash, burn, and get closed due to a non-central topic. 

Sorry. I'm done talking about it here now.

 

Link to post
31 minutes 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."

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."

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.

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

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.

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

So do I.

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

Link to post
41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

In a nutshell, yes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

"Uncomfortable"? :lol:

No.

I'm just not going to derail this thread any further regarding that.  I made my point and gave my opinion.  Out of respect to Daniel, let's move on....

I'm not sure how persuasively you made your point, though, when apparently you can't cite even one example of Smac using the expression "good faith" in a way inconsistent with what he himself has explained.

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure how persuasively you made your point, though, when apparently you can't cite even one example of Smac using the expression "good faith" in a way inconsistent with what he himself has explained.

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).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...