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

[Jeanne]

46 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. 

 

Thank you for your honesty and giving me an insight from another pov and experience.  I admire that. 

[Avatar4321]

15 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.  

Or it could be possible, work with me here, that this is the Word and Will of the Lord and we need to repent and follow Him

[Avatar4321]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

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

If you believe that then I don’t think you understand the doctrine of ChristLike you think you do.

[rockpond]

2 hours 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. 

 

Such an open and vulnerable post, wish I could give more than one rep point.  Thank you.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

If you believe that then I don’t think you understand the doctrine of ChristLike you think you do.

I understand the doctrine of the church. My natural inclinations are not an enemy to the church, for sure.

If we're talking about the teachings of the historical Jesus, I think we're all doomed just based on behavior.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Gray

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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'm sure it won't surprise you that I agree about the need for accuracy.  From the content of the interview, it certainly seems like Reynolds is either intentionally trying to be deceitful (in terms of over-simplifying the narrative and ignoring the diversity of experience that exists) or he truly is oblivious to the existence of alternative experience.  I can't say which of the two it is.  However, I'm not sure that one is any better than the other.  I think the problems with blatant dishonesty are self-evident; but on the other hand, if he is unaware and uninformed, I am even more bothered that his documentary is getting such a platform.  Why privilege this man's opinion, when he hasn't even taken the time to actually examine the issue and find out how his opinions will be perceived by the very people he is claiming to want to help?  

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

You are right that I have had a significant degree of interaction with LGBT individuals with different experiences.  There is a broad range of reactions and experiences, some of which I can completely empathize with and respect and others that I have a much harder time with.  

To answer your question, I really don’t tell people anything about what they should do.  That is way outside of my stewardship.  If someone doesn’t believe the same things I do about God and Restored Gospel, then they don’t.  I only have my experiences to work from and if they ask how I reconcile things, I’m happy to share.  But I would never pretend that I know better than they do what their personal experiences are.  For what it’s worth, I have a deep testimony that Heavenly Father is “able to do his own work.”  He knows what He is doing.  I believe that in relation to the organizational church as much as I believe that in relation to individual lives.  As strongly as I believe in the doctrines and universal applicability of the Restored Gospel, I also believe that God may lead people out of the Church on their path back to Him.

I really don’t have it in me to get worked up over other people’s personal journey.  Except to the extent that they start making it harder for others to progress on their own journey.  That is why I get pretty vocal when I hear people imply things like: because X person is LGBT and had a bad experience, the Church is a bad place for all LBGT.  

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm sure it won't surprise you that I agree about the need for accuracy.  From the content of the interview, it certainly seems like Reynolds is either intentionally trying to be deceitful (in terms of over-simplifying the narrative and ignoring the diversity of experience that exists) or he truly is oblivious to the existence of alternative experience.  I can't say which of the two it is.  However, I'm not sure that one is any better than the other.  I think the problems with blatant dishonesty are self-evident; but on the other hand, if he is unaware and uninformed, I am even more bothered that his documentary is getting such a platform.  Why privilege this man's opinion, when he hasn't even taken the time to actually examine the issue and find out how his opinions will be perceived by the very people he is claiming to want to help?  

I can't really comment yet on the interview as I haven't had the chance to listen to it (I read some of the quotes from smac, but I'd like to listen for myself for context and hear the actual entire interview). 

I have read quotes from Reynolds that are not accurate representations, IMO.....I've seen him get things wrong and I've seen him get things right.   Accuracy counts though, if he's going to be a legitimate spokesperson on this issue.  Hopefully he will listen and make corrections or clarifications.

I think his opinion is "privileged" simply because of the rock star status we allow or that exists in our society.  He is a talented musician and very successful.  Many of the youth look up to him and will listen to him.  Once again, that's why he needs to check facts and be accurate. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by ALarson

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many of the youth look up to him and will listen to him.  Once again, that's why he needs to check facts and be accurate. 

These statements are true of Reynolds and they are also true of our church leaders.

I agree with what you and @kllindley are saying that Reynolds is likely over-simplifying and applying his own biases/experiences to his film.  My study of past church leader teachings regarding this issue leads me to conclude that they have done the same.  I'm certainly guilty of letting my personal interactions and experiences color my perception on this.  I've got plenty of room to improve and learn.

It was so great to hear President (then Elder) Ballard in November when he said:  "We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord."

My prayer is that that sentiment will guide all of our actions as church members and leaders for the coming years.  Reynolds' film is likely going to represent just one viewpoint (his) but to the extent that it can open up more conversations, that will be a good thing.

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You are right that I have had a significant degree of interaction with LGBT individuals with different experiences.  There is a broad range of reactions and experiences, some of which I can completely empathize with and respect and others that I have a much harder time with.  

To answer your question, I really don’t tell people anything about what they should do.  That is way outside of my stewardship.  If someone doesn’t believe the same things I do about God and Restored Gospel, then they don’t.  I only have my experiences to work from and if they ask how I reconcile things, I’m happy to share.  But I would never pretend that I know better than they do what their personal experiences are.  For what it’s worth, I have a deep testimony that Heavenly Father is “able to do his own work.”  He knows what He is doing.  I believe that in relation to the organizational church as much as I believe that in relation to individual lives.  As strongly as I believe in the doctrines and universal applicability of the Restored Gospel, I also believe that God may lead people out of the Church on their path back to Him.

I really don’t have it in me to get worked up over other people’s personal journey.  Except to the extent that they start making it harder for others to progress on their own journey.  That is why I get pretty vocal when I hear people imply things like: because X person is LGBT and had a bad experience, the Church is a bad place for all LBGT.  

This seems like a charitable approach to those with differing beliefs, thanks for explaining for me, this helps.

I would say from my interactions with others who've left the church or who disagree with the church's policies on this topic, many of them may feel that individuals like yourself are deluded or that you are operating under a kind of Stockholm Syndrome type scenario.  I would say that their ideas are too simplistic and not representative of your experience.  

However, I think an analogy that is also a challenging one for me to try and empathize with is with respect to women in polygamous relationships in the FLDS and other groups.  I personally believe they are being repressed and in an unfair relationship, and I believe that their circumstances could be qualitatively better outside of that kind of relationship.  But if you talk to many of these individuals they will tell you how happy they are, and how they sincerely believe their lifestyle is commanded by God and that they value this greatly.   

I think being exposed to different perspectives that don't always fit our ideals is important.  While I personally don't understand the perspective of an LGBT believing member that supports the church's policies any more than I understand a woman living a polygamous lifestyle that supports her church's policies, I think its important to recognize that these people exist and we should try to empathize as much as we can, even if we have differences of opinion.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Or it could be possible, work with me here, that this is the Word and Will of the Lord and we need to repent and follow Him

Or it could be the will of the devil.  Or it could just be that its the trend of the culture (conservative Christian culture).  Lots of possible influencing factors.  

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

These statements are true of Reynolds and they are also true of our church leaders.

Broadly speaking, yes.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with what you and @kllindley are saying that Reynolds is likely over-simplifying and applying his own biases/experiences to his film. 

Agreed.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My study of past church leader teachings regarding this issue leads me to conclude that they have done the same. 

Well, I'll have to disagree with you quite a bit here.  The two situations are not, in my view, on equal footing.

The decision regarding the policy changes was reached by the fifteen members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  They reached this decision after considerable effort and discussion of the "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."  They fasted and prayed.  They met in the temple repeatedly and "sought further direction and inspiration" from God about it.  And then,

Quote

when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

These combined efforts by these fifteen men to understand this issue, to set aside their personal opinions and discern and follow the will of God regarding this issue, are not reasonably compared to the incoherent jumble of good intentions and emotions and resentments and inconsistencies that form the basis of . . . whatever Dan Reynolds is trying to do.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm certainly guilty of letting my personal interactions and experiences color my perception on this.  I've got plenty of room to improve and learn.

We all do.

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It was so great to hear President (then Elder) Ballard in November when he said:  "We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord."

My prayer is that that sentiment will guide all of our actions as church members and leaders for the coming years.  Reynolds' film is likely going to represent just one viewpoint (his) but to the extent that it can open up more conversations, that will be a good thing.

Nobody objects to Reynolds presenting his viewpoint.  Nobody objects to more conversations about this.  But his distortions and misrepresentations of the Church's doctrines and policies are not "a good thing."  His presumption and publicly demanding that his church alter its doctrines to conform to his expectations and preferences is not "a good thing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Or it could be possible, work with me here, that this is the Word and Will of the Lord and we need to repent and follow Him

Or it could be the will of the devil. 

That's an interesting theory.  Do you apply it to Dan Reynolds as well?  And to people like California Boy?  Daniel?  Are you suggesting they might be advocating "the will of the devil?"

Enquiring minds and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This seems like a charitable approach to those with differing beliefs, thanks for explaining for me, this helps.

I would say from my interactions with others who've left the church or who disagree with the church's policies on this topic, many of them may feel that individuals like yourself are deluded or that you are operating under a kind of Stockholm Syndrome type scenario.  I would say that their ideas are too simplistic and not representative of your experience.  

However, I think an analogy that is also a challenging one for me to try and empathize with is with respect to women in polygamous relationships in the FLDS and other groups.  I personally believe they are being repressed and in an unfair relationship, and I believe that their circumstances could be qualitatively better outside of that kind of relationship.  But if you talk to many of these individuals they will tell you how happy they are, and how they sincerely believe their lifestyle is commanded by God and that they value this greatly.   

I think being exposed to different perspectives that don't always fit our ideals is important.  While I personally don't understand the perspective of an LGBT believing member that supports the church's policies any more than I understand a woman living a polygamous lifestyle that supports her church's policies, I think its important to recognize that these people exist and we should try to empathize as much as we can, even if we have differences of opinion.  

I don't think that Kilindley is operating under a kind of Stockholm Syndrome type scenario.  I think there are some that can walk that path and live a happy life.  Those gay men that do find happiness in a marriage with a woman is just as much entitled to that happiness as the gay man that finds happiness in a relationship with his boyfriend.  For some gay members, the church can be a strong influence for good in their lives.  For others, it is not.  Like Kilindley, I would never judge the path that any person chooses to take that leads them to Christ.  We only have one life.  For me, the most important thing to follow in making these kinds of decisions is the Spirit.  I believe it is the tool that God gave us all to help us find our way back to him. That Spirit crosses all religion, all cultures, all nations.  It is the single most important guiding light for those that seek a path back to God.  It is what makes good men better.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's an interesting theory.  Do you apply it to Dan Reynolds as well?  And to people like California Boy?  Daniel?  Are you suggesting they might be advocating "the will of the devil?"

Enquiring minds and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly, I was just pointing out that the other side of this coin is a belief that something could be inspired of the devil.  Personally I don't believe in the devil or God in the traditional sense, but I do believe in good and evil, just not supernatural influencing entities. 

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This seems like a charitable approach to those with differing beliefs, thanks for explaining for me, this helps.

I would say from my interactions with others who've left the church or who disagree with the church's policies on this topic, many of them may feel that individuals like yourself are deluded or that you are operating under a kind of Stockholm Syndrome type scenario.  I would say that their ideas are too simplistic and not representative of your experience.  

However, I think an analogy that is also a challenging one for me to try and empathize with is with respect to women in polygamous relationships in the FLDS and other groups.  I personally believe they are being repressed and in an unfair relationship, and I believe that their circumstances could be qualitatively better outside of that kind of relationship.  But if you talk to many of these individuals they will tell you how happy they are, and how they sincerely believe their lifestyle is commanded by God and that they value this greatly.   

I think being exposed to different perspectives that don't always fit our ideals is important.  While I personally don't understand the perspective of an LGBT believing member that supports the church's policies any more than I understand a woman living a polygamous lifestyle that supports her church's policies, I think its important to recognize that these people exist and we should try to empathize as much as we can, even if we have differences of opinion.  

Well, I appreciate that you're not accusing me of being delusional or acting from Stockholm Syndrome. I do think that's the first time I've been compared to a polygamous wife. At first I was rather offended. Now, after a bit of reflection, I think I'm going to choose to be honored. 😁

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think that Kilindley is operating under a kind of Stockholm Syndrome type scenario.  I think there are some that can walk that path and live a happy life.  Those gay men that do find happiness in a marriage with a woman is just as much entitled to that happiness as the gay man that finds happiness in a relationship with his boyfriend.  For some gay members, the church can be a strong influence for good in their lives.  For others, it is not.  Like Kilindley, I would never judge the path that any person chooses to take that leads them to Christ.  We only have one life.  For me, the most important thing to follow in making these kinds of decisions is the Spirit.  I believe it is the tool that God gave us all to help us find our way back to him. That Spirit crosses all religion, all cultures, all nations.  It is the single most important guiding light for those that seek a path back to God.  It is what makes good men better.  

I appreciate your comments and think you make some valid points.  

This is honestly conflicting to me, because I immediately jump to different kinds of comparisons, individuals who have a sense they are following God but are in repressive patriarchal religious communities (like some more extreme examples in the Muslim  world,) or religions that are more extreme than Mormonism in how they police their groups (like Scientology,) or religions that as a matter of faith would have their members refuse medical treatment (like the Jehovahs Witnesses.)  

In all of these examples, I think you could find members that claim that their choices are following the spirit and according to them, leading them closer to God.  Yet from my vantage point there are ethical issues that are problematic in all of these examples.  So on one hand I try to be respectful and honoring different perspectives, but on another hand I try to take a stand on what I believe is ethical and has the greatest benefit for society as a whole.  

Any thoughts on this, I know it complex, but I think you can provide a unique and important perspective.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, I appreciate that you're not accusing me of being delusional or acting from Stockholm Syndrome. I do think that's the first time I've been compared to a polygamous wife. At first I was rather offended. Now, after a bit of reflection, I think I'm going to choose to be honored. 😁

No offense was intended on my part at all, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. 

I have many polygamists in my ancestry, and I've met current day polygamists recently, and have tried to understand their perspective without judging them individually.  I also have listened to them give presentations at Sunstone and talked to some in that setting as well, and it has been very interesting to listen to them.  I try to honor people where they are at, but at the same time I hold onto the standards that shape my world view.  I would also like to say that my world view has been informed and influenced through these interactions, and I think I've become more charitable in the process.    

I'm not comparing your experience to the polygamists, I'm trying to compare the way I don't understand your experience, to the way I don't understand the experience of the polygamist.  In both cases I try to respect your experience, even though I might think that the situations you live in aren't ideal from my vantage point.  Hope that helps clarify a little, check out my response to California Boy for a couple other analogies I just posted.  

 

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, I was just pointing out that the other side of this coin is a belief that something could be inspired of the devil. 

Right.  I'm just wonder if you are likewise publicly "pointing out" that people like Dan Reynolds, or California Boy, or Daniel, or you "could be inspired of the devil?"

Or is it just the leaders of the LDS Church that are the subject of such public musings?

Quote

Personally I don't believe in the devil or God in the traditional sense, but I do believe in good and evil, just not supernatural influencing entities. 

And despite this, you still publicly mused that the leaders of the LDS Church might be advocating "the will of the devil."  While declining to apply such public musings to Dan Reynolds, or California Boy, or Daniel, or you.

Funny, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Right.  I'm just wonder if you are likewise publicly "pointing out" that people like Dan Reynolds, or California Boy, or Daniel, or you "could be inspired of the devil?"

Or is it just the leaders of the LDS Church that are the subject of such public musings?

And despite this, you still publicly mused that the leaders of the LDS Church might be advocating "the will of the devil."  While declining to apply such public musings to Dan Reynolds, or California Boy, or Daniel, or you.

Funny, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

First you ask the question whether I'm musing that this is applicable to just the LDS church, then you choose to answer that very question yourself and assert that I'm doing just as you suggest.  Wondering if I even need to participate at this point, you could just keep asking me questions and then answering them yourself.  

Is it possible that I'm wrong on any opinions I have said, absolutely, I'm not under any delusion that my opinions are sacrosanct and infallible.  

Am I accusing the LDS church of being under the influence of Satan, no, that's not my style, this was more about replying to that earlier assertion that God is divinely guiding these policies, and showing that this assertion also makes its converse a possibility.  

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

First you ask the question whether I'm musing that this is applicable to just the LDS church, then you choose to answer that very question yourself and assert that I'm doing just as you suggest.  Wondering if I even need to participate at this point, you could just keep asking me questions and then answering them yourself.  

You are on an LDS message board, publicly musing about whether our leaders are advocating "the will of the devil."

I guess I'm indirectly suggesting this was a crass, tactless, offensive thing to do, particularly in a thread like this one.

I'm also wondering if you would publish such crass, tactless, offensive musings at LGBT folks.  My surmise is no, you wouldn't.  I'm open to correction though.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Is it possible that I'm wrong on any opinions I have said, absolutely, I'm not under any delusion that my opinions are sacrosanct and infallible.  

Again, you are on an LDS message board, publicly musing about whether our leaders are advocating "the will of the devil."

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Am I accusing the LDS church of being under the influence of Satan, no, that's not my style,

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?

Do I in the previous question accuse you of misconduct?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are on an LDS message board, publicly musing about whether our leaders are advocating "the will of the devil."

I guess I'm indirectly suggesting this was a crass, tactless, offensive thing to do, particularly in a thread like this one.

I'm also wondering if you would publish such crass, tactless, offensive musings at LGBT folks.  My surmise is no, you wouldn't.  I'm open to correction though.

Again, you are on an LDS message board, publicly musing about whether our leaders are advocating "the will of the devil."

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?

Do I in the previous question accuse you of misconduct?

Thanks,

-Smac

I clarified my comment about will of the devil a couple times now.  I'll ignore your other comments as I can't imagine how you'll listen to any further clarifications I could make.  Have fun asking and answering your own straw-men questions.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, yes.

Agreed.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you quite a bit here.  The two situations are not, in my view, on equal footing.

The decision regarding the policy changes was reached by the fifteen members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  They reached this decision after considerable effort and discussion of the "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."  They fasted and prayed.  They met in the temple repeatedly and "sought further direction and inspiration" from God about it.  And then,

These combined efforts by these fifteen men to understand this issue, to set aside their personal opinions and discern and follow the will of God regarding this issue, are not reasonably compared to the incoherent jumble of good intentions and emotions and resentments and inconsistencies that form the basis of . . . whatever Dan Reynolds is trying to do.

We all do.

Nobody objects to Reynolds presenting his viewpoint.  Nobody objects to more conversations about this.  But his distortions and misrepresentations of the Church's doctrines and policies are not "a good thing."  His presumption and publicly demanding that his church alter its doctrines to conform to his expectations and preferences is not "a good thing."

Thanks,

-Smac

I was speaking of decades of church teaching on the subject of homosexuality - not just the 2015 policy.

I don't consider Reynolds' experience and understanding to be "distortions and misrepresentations of the Church's doctrines and policies".  That is likely your perspective but I believe he is sharing the reality that he is in.  President Ballard's challenge was to "listen and understand" if we are pointing fingers and accusing of misrepresenting and distorting than I don't think we are seeking to listen and understand.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are on an LDS message board, publicly musing about whether our leaders are advocating "the will of the devil."

I guess I'm indirectly suggesting this was a crass, tactless, offensive thing to do, particularly in a thread like this one.

I'm also wondering if you would publish such crass, tactless, offensive musings at LGBT folks.  My surmise is no, you wouldn't.  I'm open to correction though.

Again, you are on an LDS message board, publicly musing about whether our leaders are advocating "the will of the devil."

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?

Do I in the previous question accuse you of misconduct?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are really working hard at being offended.  Hope for things is just saying that others have a different view than church leaders.  Who is right is really something that is totally up to the individual to believe.  I don't think he is attacking church leaders.  

Sometimes you can be extremely strident, looking for offense on any post that differs from your own personal belief.  I know I find that often in your responses to me and it makes me hesitate to respond to you.  

For what it's worth.  Try not to be offended by my post.

[Calm]

On 2018-01-24 at 6:08 PM, california boy said:

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

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

I think there are a number of heterosexuals who know to the core of their being they will never married for other reasons than physical disabilities.  In that sense only, I don't see a difference.

But I still believe there is a very significant difference because even those who know they won't get married can still fantasize about doing so, about romance, without feeling they have to control all levels of the thought lest they start nurturing inappropriate ones.  Homosexual members are told to suppress feelings heterosexuals are told are just fine as long as they are not taken to extremes.  

For many it likely creates a feeling of not being safe even in one's own thoughts.  This may happen for heterosexuals who have problems with lustful thoughts, but that still allows them a sense of only needing to control, not needing to attempt to put all sexual or romantic feelings aside as soon as they are recognized for what they are.

I do think a huge part of the problem is how our (American and European and therefore to  great extent LDS) cultures think about sex and romance.  Not sure how the experience will change until the culture does.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Calm