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

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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

I doubt it.  The Church has a few outliers, some "icky" things, in its history.  I'll own that.  Polygamy was a biggie, but it also has a strong scriptural/revelatory provenance.  It began and ended with revelation.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a huge outlier.  It was terrible.  It was wrong.  It is without any justification at all.  But it was also not anything to do with revelation or prophetic leadership (to the contrary, Brigham Young's counsel, had it been timely received, would have averted the massacre).

The Priesthood Ban is another outlier, and perhaps the most problematic one.  Significantly, it lacks any known revelatory origin.  It's cessation, however, was revelatory.  This is the one that has resulted in "disavowals" by the Church as pertaining to theories about the origins and purpose of the Ban.

But apart from those disavowals, the Church hasn't backed away from its doctrines.  The Church enacted polygamy by revelation, and ended it by revelation.  D&C 132 is still there.  Not disavowed. 

The Church also ended the Priesthood Ban by revelation.  That's about it as far as precedents that you could potentially cite.  They are not very on-point, I think.

So while I am open to the theoretical possibility that the Church will "disavow" its teachings regarding homosexual behavior, I doubt it will ever happen.  It just does not seem to be part of The Plan.

The Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity have not changed in any substantive way, even though we are half a century into the Sexual Revolution.  The Church has changed its tone and tenor of how it treats members of the Church who engage in sexual sin.  But the designation of things like fornication and homosexual behavior has not changed one lick.  So I think your prediction is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Quote

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

I don't think so.  I think their teachings are richly scriptural.  Moreover, the Church leaders are not not just winging it.  They have given a lot of thought and effort into addressing LGBT issues in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I think their teachings are richly scriptural.  Moreover, the Church leaders are not not just winging it.  They have given a lot of thought and effort into addressing LGBT issues in the Church.

This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and are still making such an egregious intentional choice.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and are still making such an egregious intentional choice.  

The choice was not egregious.  At all.  It was reasoned.  It was reasonable.  And it was revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

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

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

God is with all of us if we seek Him.

Nah, the church is good with my natural man. 40, married, and low energy. My natural man game is strong.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I think you're thinking on more official terms than he is--which of course he is as well to some extent.   He's speaking of specific people and their plights through the Church.  You're speaking of the Church's official position if followed appropriately, to some extent.  I'm more convinced personally of his take, not only because he's actually working with people who feel these things and you are not, but because I've seen the effects upon people myself.  But I will also add, even if followed precisely as the Church lays it out, people will still feel shamed, which really only amounts to one element of this whole saga.  If people feel shamed, and you declare from the housetops that there is no shaming occurring, then it must be reasoned you don't get it, or you think those who feel shamed are at fault.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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

not only that but a huge swath of LDS people of influence outside of those particular callings.  Most LDS speak about the topic as if being gay is sinful.  Some surely stop and say, "well feeling attracted to those of the same sex might not be sinful, but acting on it is".  Acting on it?  What does that mean?  Flirting, giggling, and touching?  

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sorry.  That doesn't pass the smell test.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems to me you're dismissing, but if you feel like you are, cool.  

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and are still making such an egregious intentional choice.  

This kind of sounds like "This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and still don't agree with me." 

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This kind of sounds like "This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and still don't agree with me." 

 

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and are still making such an egregious intentional choice.  

Hope, have you taken much time to read the experiences of LGBT members who are happy in the Church? It seems like either you haven't, or just don't take us seriously. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're thinking on more official terms than he is--which of course he is as well to some extent.  

I'm rather skeptical about unofficial claims of "shaming," too.  Mr. Reynolds claims that his "whole community" knew about his transgression.  What does that mean?  The whole ward?  The whole stake?  And how did they find out?  He gives the impression that his transgression was published from the pulpit in his "community," or something like that.  That "shaming" is a calculated, widespread, deliberate thing.  It's not.  The Church keeps these things very private.  

It's possible, I suppose, that Mr. Reynolds or his family blabbed, and that the grapevine thereafter took over.  But that's on him and his family (and, to some extent, to gossips in the Church, who should certainly know better).  There is also a possibility that his bishop divulged Mr. Reynold confession, which would be an egregious breach of trust and of the Church's guidelines and policies. 

Nevertheless, "shaming" brought about by the "whole community" knowing what he had done would be an anomaly.  There is no systematic mechanism, official or otherwise, of "shaming" in the LDS Church.  Mr. Reynolds, however, is strongly suggesting to a generally uninformed public that there is.  I think that amounts to bearing false witness against us.

Quote

He's speaking of specific people and their plights through the Church. 

He was speaking of his experience at getting kicked out of (that is, he was temporarily postoned from matriculating in) BYU.

Again, there is no systemic process, official or otherwise, for "shaming" people in the LDS Church.  We simply don't do that.  And in those few instances where gossip undermines the Church's clear policies and guidelines, then those participants are in the wrong.  But here's the thing: Divulging disciplinary matters is a violation of the Church's policies and procedures.  Mr. Reynolds is essentially misleading the world by suggesting just the opposite of that.

Quote

You're speaking of the Church's official position if followed appropriately, to some extent.  I'm more convinced personally of his take, not only because he's actually working with people who feel these things and you are not, but because I've seen the effects upon people myself.  But I will also add, even if followed precisely as the Church lays it out, people will still feel shamed, which really only amounts to one element of this whole saga.  If people feel shamed, and you declare from the housetops that there is no shaming occurring, then it must be reasoned you don't get it, or you think those who feel shamed are at fault.

"Shame" is both a noun and a verb.  Mr. Reynolds is publicly accusing the Church of "shaming" people (he's using it as a verb).  That's just not so.  We are a voluntarily associated community of faith.  Our basic doctrines, including the Law of Chastity, are consistently taught and fairly easy to understand. 

If a member of our community of faith feels "ashamed" for violating the Law of Chastity, that's a natural consequence, and perhaps even appropriate to some extent (feeling "shame" in that context, after all, is "the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another").

But Mr. Reynolds is using "shame" as a verb.  As in "to publicly humiliate or shame for being or doing something specified (usually used in combination)."  As in the LDS Church publicly humiliated him because of his transgression.  As in the LDS Church publicly humiliates gay people as a matter of course and practice for "being" gay.  That is simply not happening in any systemic way in the Church.  It is a flagrant falsehood to suggest otherwise, as Mr. Reynolds appears to be doing.  Publicly.

Quote

not only that but a huge swath of LDS people of influence outside of those particular callings.  Most LDS speak about the topic as if being gay is sinful. 

That is not my experience.  The Church has been emphatic for years in addressing this point:

Quote

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

Even Mr. Reynolds, in his interview, acknowledges that the members of the Church regularly correct his false statements on this point.  I did not include this point in my summary, but he mentioned that he is annoyed at members of the Church correcting him by saying that the Church teaches that "being" gay (having the feelings/orientation) is not a sin, but acting on it is.  He then went on a mini-diatribe about how silly it is to differentiate between "feelings" and "behavior" (a rather bizarre claim, IMO).

So no, I can't agree that "most LDS speak about the topic as if being gay is sinful."  And those who do say such things are speaking out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

Quote

Some surely stop and say, "well feeling attracted to those of the same sex might not be sinful, but acting on it is".  Acting on it?  What does that mean?  Flirting, giggling, and touching?  

Because a thing cannot be defined with exacting precision does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Consider a man's obligation to maintain fidelity to is wife.  Would you really come along as say something like "What does that mean?  Flirting, giggling, and touching another woman?"

Quote

Seems to me you're dismissing, but if you feel like you are, cool.  

To an extent, yes, I am dismissing what Mr. Reynolds has to say.  I've listened to him, and found his position to be inconsistent, not particularly coherent, and manifestly unfair and unreasonable toward the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Nah, the church is good with my natural man. 40, married, and low energy. My natural man game is strong.

Huh?  Your definition of "natural man" is "40, married, and low energy?"  How does that work?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're thinking on more official terms than he is--which of course he is as well to some extent.   He's speaking of specific people and their plights through the Church.  You're speaking of the Church's official position if followed appropriately, to some extent.  I'm more convinced personally of his take, not only because he's actually working with people who feel these things and you are not, but because I've seen the effects upon people myself.  But I will also add, even if followed precisely as the Church lays it out, people will still feel shamed, which really only amounts to one element of this whole saga.  If people feel shamed, and you declare from the housetops that there is no shaming occurring, then it must be reasoned you don't get it, or you think those who feel shamed are at fault.  

not only that but a huge swath of LDS people of influence outside of those particular callings.  Most LDS speak about the topic as if being gay is sinful.  Some surely stop and say, "well feeling attracted to those of the same sex might not be sinful, but acting on it is".  Acting on it?  What does that mean?  Flirting, giggling, and touching?  

 

Seems to me you're dismissing, but if you feel like you are, cool.  

Speaking of dismissing. .  . . Have you taken much time to listen to the perspectives of LGBT members who are happy in the Church? Are you comfortable dismissing their experience the way Reynolds does? 

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This kind of sounds like "This is one of the things that saddens me the most. The fact that they have studied this topic and still don't agree with me." 

The difference is if mistakes are made based on a naive or uninformed positions, vs. mistakes being made while having a fairly clear understanding of the facts.  The latter situation being egregious, and I think this is supported in Mormon theology, we become more accountable only after we have a knowledge of things, without knowledge there is less accountability.  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Speaking of dismissing. .  . . Have you taken much time to listen to the perspectives of LGBT members who are happy in the Church? Are you comfortable dismissing their experience the way Reynolds does? 

I feel I have.  I dont' see how their experience negates the experience of others.  

It's true some feel levels of being shamed while others do not.  But in the sum, I would say shaming, as we use the term of then these days, is only part of the issue.  

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Speaking of dismissing. .  . . Have you taken much time to listen to the perspectives of LGBT members who are happy in the Church? Are you comfortable dismissing their experience the way Reynolds does? 

I always appreciate it when you enter the discussion and give your perspective on this topic, kllindley.  I've wondered if you've ever considered writing a book or at least publishing your experience online?  Maybe that's too personal for you, and I respect that.

Were you ever made to feel shame over being gay?  Honest question.  

I think of some things I've thought or done in the past regarding this topic, and I think much was done by members and leaders simply out of ignorance.  I do believe there has been much progress made and I hope there will be even more in the future.  What this young man is doing is good....but he does need to make sure he's accurately portraying things if he wants to be completely effective, IMO.

Edited January 25, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Speaking of dismissing. .  . . Have you taken much time to listen to the perspectives of LGBT members who are happy in the Church? Are you comfortable dismissing their experience the way Reynolds does? 

I can very easily believe that some gay members are very happy in the church. In the Catholic Church, some people choose voluntary lifelong celibacy, and that works for them.

Not everyone is built for that though.

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

Hope, have you taken much time to read the experiences of LGBT members who are happy in the Church? It seems like either you haven't, or just don't take us seriously. 

I'll be honest, I haven't had much exposure to people like yourself.  Perhaps you could point me to some resources, and I can consider them.  It doubt it will change my opinion about the ethics of the church's policies, but I always want to take into account the experiences of others and recognize a variety of different perspectives that exist.  

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  Your definition of "natural man" is "40, married, and low energy?"  How does that work?

Thanks,

-Smac

All my natural inclinations are in line with accepted behavioral norms.

[Okrahomer]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Confrontation, accusations, and vilifying seems to be what some feel is needed more.  Thank you for your post.  

 

If you don't walk as most people do,

Some people walk away from you,

But I won't! I won't!

If you don't talk as most people do,

Some people talk and laugh at you,

But I won't! I won't!

I'll walk with you. I'll talk with you.

That's how I'll show my love for you.

Jesus walked away from none.

He gave his love to ev'ryone.

So I will! I will!

Jesus blessed all he could see,

Then turned and said, "Come, follow me."

And I will! I will!

I will! I will!

I'll walk with you. I'll talk with you.

That's how I'll show my love for you.

 

--Carol Lynn Pearson, LDS Children's Songbook

Edited January 25, 2018 by Okrahomer

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I feel I have.  I dont' see how their experience negates the experience of others.  

It's true some feel levels of being shamed while others do not.  But in the sum, I would say shaming, as we use the term of then these days, is only part of the issue.  

I didn't say anything about their experiences negating other experiences.  Why do you think you jumped to that conclusion?  I simply asked whether you were comfortable with the way Reynolds dismisses and ignores an entire section of LGBT individuals whose experience doesn't support his narrative.  

[kllindley]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'll be honest, I haven't had much exposure to people like yourself.  Perhaps you could point me to some resources, and I can consider them.  It doubt it will change my opinion about the ethics of the church's policies, but I always want to take into account the experiences of others and recognize a variety of different perspectives that exist.  

I appreciate the honesty and awareness that these experiences are not likely to change your opinion.  I assume that the same is true for people on the other side of the issue.  The experiences in the documentary are probably going to further charge people who already support Reynolds's goal and not make much difference to the rest.  

But since you asked:  https://ldsvoicesofhope.org/     That is enough to keep a person busy for a very long time.   Also, there is a lot of material from North Star LDS from people who deal with the issue personally.  https://northstarlds.org     

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I didn't say anything about their experiences negating other experiences.  Why do you think you jumped to that conclusion?  I simply asked whether you were comfortable with the way Reynolds dismisses and ignores an entire section of LGBT individuals whose experience doesn't support his narrative.  

I haven't followed him closely.  I took issue with Smac claiming he was bearing false witness, as that claim didn't work in my estimation.  As to whether he dismisses and ignores an entire section?  I don't know that he does.  I'd guess though it likely feels that way because he focuses on those who are hurt.  He seems to want to help the hurting, which is a good thing.  

[kllindley]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I always appreciate it when you enter the discussion and give your perspective on this topic, kllindley.  I've wondered if you've ever considered writing a book or at least publishing your experience online?  Maybe that's too personal for you, and I respect that.

Were you ever made to feel shame over being gay?  Honest question.  

I think of some things I've thought or done in the past regarding this topic, and I think much was done by members and leaders simply out of ignorance.  I do believe there has been much progress made and I hope there will be even more in the future.  What this young man is doing is good....but he does need to make sure he's accurately portraying things if he wants to be completely effective, IMO.

I have contributed parts of my story to a book already published.  I have also shared my experiences online in some depth on a personal blog.

Regarding shame, I appreciate the honest question and will try to answer it as honestly as I can.  From as early as I can remember having sexual feelings for other guys, I did not feel shame for what I felt.  I felt a lot of shame about a number of things--shame and I were intimately familiar by the time I was 10.  But the only thing related to sexuality that I felt shame about as a youth was my addiction to masturbation.  I felt shame about my lack of athletic coordination, I felt shame about being smarter than everyone in my grade at school, I felt shame about trying to be a good, honest kid.  I felt shame about my hideous appearance. I knew on a certain level that my homosexual feelings were wrong, in the sense that they were just sexual feelings misdirected.  However, even reading The Miracle of Forgiveness didn't create shame about my feelings.  

After I was married (I had expected that this would "cure" me, even though I had never been told or promised this by anyone), and I found my attractions getting more intense, I did believe there was something wrong with me.  However, when I opened up to my wife, and parents, and bishop, and LDS therapist; no one tried to make me feel shame about my attractions.  In fact, my bishop, therapist and wife were specifically focused on confronting my shame.  There was no expectation that anything I did (spirituality, therapy, etc) was going to make my attraction go away.  The understanding was that through time they would become less consuming and that I would find myself happy and fulfilled in my marriage.  That has proven true.  I do believe that the cultural dynamics of the church played a role in the intense levels of shame I felt, but that was much more about my pornography use and other violations of the commandments.  I had to learn that guilt (good) and shame (bad) were different things.  

I hope that answers the question. 

 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I have contributed parts of my story to a book already published.  I have also shared my experiences online in some depth on a personal blog.

Regarding shame, I appreciate the honest question and will try to answer it as honestly as I can.  From as early as I can remember having sexual feelings for other guys, I did not feel shame for what I felt.  I felt a lot of shame about a number of things--shame and I were intimately familiar by the time I was 10.  But the only thing related to sexuality that I felt shame about as a youth was my addiction to masturbation.  I felt shame about my lack of athletic coordination, I felt shame about being smarter than everyone in my grade at school, I felt shame about trying to be a good, honest kid.  I felt shame about my hideous appearance. I knew on a certain level that my homosexual feelings were wrong, in the sense that they were just sexual feelings misdirected.  However, even reading The Miracle of Forgiveness didn't create shame about my feelings.  

After I was married (I had expected that this would "cure" me, even though I had never been told or promised this by anyone), and I found my attractions getting more intense, I did believe there was something wrong with me.  However, when I opened up to my wife, and parents, and bishop, and LDS therapist; no one tried to make me feel shame about my attractions.  In fact, my bishop, therapist and wife were specifically focused on confronting my shame.  There was no expectation that anything I did (spirituality, therapy, etc) was going to make my attraction go away.  The understanding was that through time they would become less consuming and that I would find myself happy and fulfilled in my marriage.  That has proven true.  I do believe that the cultural dynamics of the church played a role in the intense levels of shame I felt, but that was much more about my pornography use and other violations of the commandments.  I had to learn that guilt (good) and shame (bad) were different things.  

I hope that answers the question. 

 

I miss the ability to give rep points.  Thanks for sharing.  This was awesome.  

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I admit, this has really had an effect on me.  I have three very close family members who are gay.  Each of them knows that their being gay makes no difference to us.  We love them deeply and forever.  So, even though I have always been--even when I was inactive--pretty much TBM about these things; I would be lying if I said that I was 100% comfortable in how we approach LGBTQ issues right now. 

Thank you for your thoughts.  I share them.  

16 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I've tried to imagine and think through what (if any) accommodation the Church could make. 

Same here.  The Church has already made some real and substantial efforts to improve its interactions with LGBT folks.  Unfortunately, these have been dismissed by the likes of Mr. Reynolds as meaningless "platitudes."

Nevertheless, I too have tried to identify possible accommodations the Church could make.  But I don't think there are any that people like Mr. Reynolds would find sufficient.  He does not want mere "accommodations."  He wants - and is publicly demanding - utter capitulation:

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.

There is no reasoning with a person like Mr. Reynolds.  

16 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

As has been noted here and several other places on the board, it is very difficult to see a way ahead. 

The "way ahead" seems to involve . . . a parting of the ways.  At least for people who make absurdly unreasonable, my-way-or-the-highway demands of the Church (like Dan Reynolds and, not too long ago, Kate Kelly).

16 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

But of course, I'm no prophet.  I'm just someone who loves his family and wishes, with all his heart that there was a way to help these good people. 

Same here.  

The Gospel is a wonderful thing, but it has some parts that can be hard for a person to accept.  We Latter-day Saints sometimes err in expecting the Restored Gospel to be - as my father puts it - “all sweetness and light.”  Most of the teachings and principles taught in the Gospel are, on their face, usually palatable and comfortable and comforting to most people.  “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39) is a wonderful, and utterly uncontroversial, doctrine.  But we cannot expect all of what the Savior said to be immediately pleasing and soothing.  One of the Savior’s titles is “the Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, 2 Nephi 19:6).  The word “gospel” is derived from the Old English gōdspel, “from gōd ‘good’ + spel ‘news, a story.’”  This message from God is going to be inherently good and beautiful.  And yet the Gospel will not necessarily be well-received in a fallen world where many opinions and philosophies of men, and the influences of the adversary, are influential and widespread.  Consider the response the Savior received to His “Bread of Life” sermon as recorded in John 6:

Quote

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
…
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
…
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
…
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.  

(John 6: 41-42, 51-52, 60-61, 66)

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it “murmured at him.”  Many of those who heard it “strove among themselves.”  Many of those who heard it “went back, and walked no more with him.”

Jesus said and did some things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  But He preached them anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate some people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear His message, and who needed to be gathered out of the World.  I therefore find the following words of the Savior to be compelling:

Quote

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

(John 6:66-68)

Sooner or later, I think we all end up facing that question.

16 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

At the end of the day, though, I will follow the prophets of God--even while I love and support the gay members of my own family.

Same here.  Those two efforts are quite compatible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I have contributed parts of my story to a book already published.  I have also shared my experiences online in some depth on a personal blog.

Regarding shame, I appreciate the honest question and will try to answer it as honestly as I can.  From as early as I can remember having sexual feelings for other guys, I did not feel shame for what I felt.  I felt a lot of shame about a number of things--shame and I were intimately familiar by the time I was 10.  But the only thing related to sexuality that I felt shame about as a youth was my addiction to masturbation.  I felt shame about my lack of athletic coordination, I felt shame about being smarter than everyone in my grade at school, I felt shame about trying to be a good, honest kid.  I felt shame about my hideous appearance. I knew on a certain level that my homosexual feelings were wrong, in the sense that they were just sexual feelings misdirected.  However, even reading The Miracle of Forgiveness didn't create shame about my feelings.  

After I was married (I had expected that this would "cure" me, even though I had never been told or promised this by anyone), and I found my attractions getting more intense, I did believe there was something wrong with me.  However, when I opened up to my wife, and parents, and bishop, and LDS therapist; no one tried to make me feel shame about my attractions.  In fact, my bishop, therapist and wife were specifically focused on confronting my shame.  There was no expectation that anything I did (spirituality, therapy, etc) was going to make my attraction go away.  The understanding was that through time they would become less consuming and that I would find myself happy and fulfilled in my marriage.  That has proven true.  I do believe that the cultural dynamics of the church played a role in the intense levels of shame I felt, but that was much more about my pornography use and other violations of the commandments.  I had to learn that guilt (good) and shame (bad) were different things.  

I hope that answers the question. 

 

Yes, and thanks kllindley for your raw honesty.  You've got a pretty amazing story to tell....thanks again for sharing and giving your important insight on this topic.

ETA:

I also meant to say that it sounds like you have a very loving, supportive wife and that you were blessed with some great local leaders as well.  I'm happy your journey has progressed to where you can talk about it so openly and that it's positive for you.

Edited January 25, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I appreciate the honesty and awareness that these experiences are not likely to change your opinion.  I assume that the same is true for people on the other side of the issue.  The experiences in the documentary are probably going to further charge people who already support Reynolds's goal and not make much difference to the rest.  

But since you asked:  https://ldsvoicesofhope.org/     That is enough to keep a person busy for a very long time.   Also, there is a lot of material from North Star LDS from people who deal with the issue personally.  https://northstarlds.org     

Thanks kllindley I will look at the voices of hope site, I'm familiar with North star.  I also wanted to give you kudos for sharing your experience in such a vulnerable way not only on this message board but in the book you referenced.  I admire your courage, and wish you the best on your life journey.   

Can I ask a question.  I'm sure you have interacted with others in the LGBT community that have had different experiences than your own.  For those people that believe the church's current policy doesn't reflect the divine will of God, what do you tell them when you interact with them?  Do you try to tell them that they should give the church another chance?  Do you try to tell them that they've gone astray?  I'm just curious how you approach these people in a thoughtful way, considering just how many of them have experienced trauma and may have very sensitive feelings about the church and the harm they believe has been perpetuated through the church on them personally.