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

[california boy]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I spend about 6 months living outside the United States and have been doing that for over a decade.  It has given me the opportunity to live with other cultures in different parts of the world for long periods of time.  I have seen good and bad in every religion. There is extremism in every culture and every religion.  Religious leaders that focus their whole life in telling others how they should live seem to also be present in all cultures. But what moves me is when I have the opportunity to witness simple devotion from the humble and spiritual in every culture and every religion who yearn for a connection to God.  Believe me, they get that connection that they seek.  They are the ones that I believe the Spirit is able to lead closer to God.  No religion has an exclusive claim on that Spirit. No religion has the only way back to God.  For me it only stands to reason that there is more than a 1% of the world's population that God is touching and guiding back to him.  

It is the Spirit that is the leavening throughout the world, not a particular denomination.  That Spirit will lead people out of the oppression and unfairness that you see.  Sometimes they just have to have the courage to listen to those promptings and act on them.  What God wants us to do in this life is not all that complicated. Christ was able to sum it up in two sentences.   It is religion that seems to want to make it complicated.  

Not sure if I will respond to follow up questions in this thread.  I don't want to derail into another discussion.  Though I think it is a very worthwhile discussion to have.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I personally find these kinds of comparisons disingenuous strictly from my point of view. Heterosexuals who know to the core of their being they will never married for other reasons than physical disabilities is nothing like someone who is gay.  They aren't told who not to marry, who not to have feelings for. who not to want to share their life with.  None of their feelings are inappropriate.  Nor are their hopes and dreams something that should be suppressed.  

The only true comparison is if the church told a perfectly healthy heterosexual person who fully expects to marry, that they must be celibate their whole life.  That they can not have a life with someone they are in love with.  That they can not have a family.  People can understand why someone who thinks they may never marry may not.   People would not understand why a healthy heterosexual person who is fully able to marry can not marry simply because who they are attracted to is the wrong type of gender

I personally hate being compared to someone who is an adulterer or a forinicator or a physically handicapped person, or a widower. or someone who know to the core of their being they will never married   I am none of those things.  I have broken no sacred promises, I can wait until marriage to have sex.  My spouse has not died.  I am perfectly healthy.  I am capable of having a marriage relationship.  

I would much rather have a person tell me that they don't think I should marry because they think the prophet of God has been told by God that I should not marry.  I can respect that.  I find comparisons to others that I don't compare to at all disingenuous and more of an excuse to make church members feel better about their belief that gays shouldn't marry.

This is not about sex.  This is about relationships.  This is about family.  This is about everything that probably you and most humans prize above all other things on this earth.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I personally find these kinds of comparisons disingenuous strictly from my point of view. Heterosexuals who know to the core of their being they will never married for other reasons than physical disabilities is nothing like someone who is gay.  They aren't told who not to marry, who not to have feelings for. who not to want to share their life with.  None of their feelings are inappropriate.  Nor are their hopes and dreams something that should be suppressed.  

The only true comparison is if the church told a perfectly healthy heterosexual person who fully expects to marry, that they must be celibate their whole life.  That they can not have a life with someone they are in love with.  That they can not have a family.  People can understand why someone who thinks they may never marry may not.   People would not understand why a healthy heterosexual person who is fully able to marry can not marry simply because who they are attracted to is the wrong type of gender

I personally hate being compared to someone who is an adulterer or a forinicator or a physically handicapped person, or a widower. or someone who know to the core of their being they will never married   I am none of those things.  I have broken no sacred promises, I can wait until marriage to have sex.  My spouse has not died.  I am perfectly healthy.  I am capable of having a marriage relationship.  

I would much rather have a person tell me that they don't think I should marry because they think the prophet of God has been told by God that I should not marry.  I can respect that.  I find comparisons to others that I don't compare to at all disingenuous and more of an excuse to make church members feel better about their belief that gays shouldn't marry.

This is not about sex.  This is about relationships.  This is about family.  This is about everything that probably you and most humans prize above all other things on this earth.  

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my conclusions, I am guessing yes because we both see homosexuals are being told to suppress desires, hopes, and dreams that heterosexuals are being told to hold on to and that God wants and blesses them for doing so (vizualing a temple marriage with a generic spouse until more desirable details are found and filled in).

 Did you read my second paragraph?  The first describes a superficial comparison that misses what makes being able to have and hold on to without shame or guilt a dream of love and companionship so important...even if that dream is not to come in this life.  The second points out some of what is completely ignored in such comparisons, including the likelihood because the homosexual is taught to reject some pretty consistent thoughts or at least not to nurture then, I find it possible they don't find their inner thoughts to be a nurturing refuge, but the walls and defenses have to stay up even there.

I find your use of switching of places to be a thought experiment that is pretty useless because there are somethings so ingrained, I suspect very few can actually place themselves in that situation theorectically and still trigger authentic feelings beyond a gut sense of 'this is absurd '.  It reminds me of the white journalist in the 60s maybe who put on black makeup and "passed" for a number of weeks to see what it was like to live as blacks do.... missing a fundamental and essential quality of blacks never having the option of going home and taking the makeup off.  He experienced somethings like a black man might, he would never be able to feel about it the same way though because he knew that was not his reality.

That is why I find telling people to imagine how would they feel if they were someone different to be an absurd and superficial feel good treatment (Gee, how empathic I am feeling!). The only way to know is if they were that person.  Better to recognize somethings we will never understand in the other no matter how we try, though we can still ask them about themselves to learn who they are and then actually listen rather than putting ourselves at the center of a 'me' conversation (how would I react if, how would I suffer, rejoice, etc)   Better to find out to the best you can do who they are and ask them how they feel about the world etc. once you move out of shared experiences.

----

If one ignores the very significant difference in how gays and straights are taught to nurture or 'control/suppress' their internal thoughts of companionship, what they are encouraged in freedom to explore and what they are not, how one gets praise for holding on to their dreams and healthy fantasies in spite of obstacles over the years, while the other is told to place most of theirs, if not all on the altar of the Lord to be replaced with what the Lord wills...and never look back in longing...well, I don't see how one can ignore those differences given it a bit of thought.  And see them as very, very, very significantly different.

Perhaps you think "fantasizing" means "sex" while I am talking more about companionship, the home and family that takes one breathe away because it is so easy to breathe there 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my conclusions, I am guessing yes because we both see homosexuals are being told to suppress desires, hopes, and dreams that heterosexuals are being told to hold on to and that God wants and blesses them for doing so (vizualing a temple marriage with a generic spouse until more desirable details are found and filled in).

 Did you read my second paragraph?  The first describes a superficial comparison that misses what makes being able to have and hold on to without shame or guilt a dream of love and companionship so important...even if that dream is not to come in this life.  The second points out some of what is completely ignored in such comparisons, including the likelihood because the homosexual is taught to reject some pretty consistent thoughts or at least not to nurture then, I find it possible they don't find their inner thoughts to be a nurturing refuge, but the walls and defenses have to stay up even there.

I find your use of switching of places to be a thought experiment that is pretty useless because there are somethings so ingrained, I suspect very few can actually place themselves in that situation theorectically and still trigger authentic feelings beyond a gut sense of 'this is absurd '.  It reminds me of the white journalist in the 60s maybe who put on black makeup and "passed" for a number of weeks to see what it was like to live as blacks do.... missing a fundamental and essential quality of blacks never having the option of going home and taking the makeup off.  He experienced somethings like a black man might, he would never be able to feel about it the same way though because he knew that was not his reality.

That is why I find telling people to imagine how would they feel if they were someone different to be an absurd and superficial feel good treatment (Gee, how empathic I am feeling!). The only way to know is if they were that person.  Better to recognize somethings we will never understand in the other no matter how we try, though we can still ask them about themselves to learn who they are and then actually listen rather than putting ourselves at the center of a 'me' conversation (how would I react if, how would I suffer, rejoice, etc)   Better to find out to the best you can do who they are and ask them how they feel about the world etc. once you move out of shared experiences.

----

If one ignores the very significant difference in how gays and straights are taught to nurture or 'control/suppress' their internal thoughts of companionship, what they are encouraged in freedom to explore and what they are not, how one gets praise for holding on to their dreams and healthy fantasies in spite of obstacles over the years, while the other is told to place most of theirs, if not all on the altar of the Lord to be replaced with what the Lord wills...and never look back in longing...well, I don't see how one can ignore those differences given it a bit of thought.  And see them as very, very, very significantly different.

Perhaps you think "fantasizing" means "sex" while I am talking more about companionship, the home and family that takes one breathe away because it is so easy to breathe there 

Hopefully, I was adding to what you wrote and giving you a viewpoint from where I am.  To a large extent, when I married, I was like the white author who put on the black makeup.  I knew that I wasn't really the person that I was trying to pass myself off as being.  I was just trying to pass as straight.  Eventually I realized that the make up had to come off at some point.  

What I find disingenuous is when others that are not gay push their own spin on how the church treats all equally.  Married men not being able to have affairs, those with physical disabilities that may not be able to marry, couples having to wait until marriage all have to be celibate as well.  So gays are only treated the same as others.  Your post was not suggesting that, but others frequently make that kind of absurd statement.  When it comes to the church trying to dialogue better with those that are gay, that kind of comparisons are more harmful than doing anything to address their situation.  It is nothing like those kinds of situations. However if the. prophet announced that all straight people could no longer marry and have families, that would be the same equal command for celibacy.  Most can't imagine how devastating that kind of command would be for their lives.

[Daniel2]

Interesting development.... this article indicates the ads may be an attempt to proactively address the media attention from “Beliver”:

LDS Church ads about LGBTQ issues attracts attention

BY JENNIFER WEAVER

TUESDAY, JANUARY 23RD 2018

Advertisements featuring leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are attracting attention for content that addresses LGBTQ issues. (Photo: LDS YouTube Ad)

(KUTV) - Advertisements featuring leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are attracting attention for content that addresses LGBTQ issues.

For example, a Facebook ad featuring Quorum of the Twelve Elder M. Russell Ballard has been shared nearly 2,500 times and viewed close to 335,000 times since being posted January 19, 2018.

Ballard’s message in the ad, in part, says, “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." 

LDS Church Spokesperson Eric Hawkins said, “The ads are part of a larger effort to promote messages from church leaders. These ads appear on social media, including YouTube, and address a variety of topics. This excerpt is from a speech delivered by President M. Russell Ballard at BYU in November 2017."

Similar pre-roll ads began appearing on YouTube in addition to sponsored ads on Facebook days after the new First Presidency of the Church fielded media questions at a news conference, January 16, 2018.

When asked about the scope of the ads campaign, Hawkins would only say that it is “ongoing.”

Emily Jensen, editor of A Book of Mormons, said the ads are “confusing” as to what it means to be Mormon and how members approach and accept those who are gay.

“The past few years the message has been increasingly to not bully them--meaning do not kick them out of your homes and do not be mean to them at school and work--and to love them but not accept their gay actions,” Jensen said. “But this message of grudging inclusion is tempered by the still new doctrine that we will kick gay members out of the church if they marry and call them apostate (and not allow their children to be baptized).”

The policy set forth by the Church in November 2015 states that entering into a same-sex marriage is considered “apostasy” and requires a Church disciplinary council. In addition, the policy updated in the Church’s Handbook 1, a guide for bishops and priesthood leaders, forbids children from same-sex relationships to participate religious rites such as baptism until they turn 18.

“So, on the one hand, our church programs are full of reminders that we are children of a God who loves us no matter what and yet the church is modeling a conditional love and acceptance in the here and now,” Jensen said.

Jensen speculates the ads may be targeted to combat the likelihood of negative press generated from the Sundance showing of “Believer” - a documentary about the LoveLoud Festival in Orem, Utah, that benefited at-risk LGBTQ youth, and was endorsed by the Mormon Church. If so, Jensen said the ads are a smart public relations move.

“I'd argue that [President] Ballard's comments are the most recent positive spin on the church's position regarding LGBT members,” she said. “People are curious about what the church thinks about LGBT members and anytime something brings the conversation to the fore is going to engender public comment and scrutiny … people are going to have these conversations on Facebook, and click into the trailer from ‘Believer’ on YouTube.”

[kllindley]

On 1/26/2018 at 2:46 PM, Daniel2 said:

Interesting development.... this article indicates the ads may be an attempt to proactively address the media attention from “Beliver”:

 

 

I read a very insightful analysis from a dear friend that really captures my thoughts and reaction to the documentary and the related effort. Shared here with his permission. 

Quote

Activists lobby against certain churches or religions trying to publicly shame them into changing what they teach on homosexuality. But I've never seen any activists understand the difference between deeply held theology or doctrine and much more surface policies.

A faith's doctrine that has held for centuries that sex is blessed by God only within a marriage between husband and wife, and is forbidden in all other circumstances, cannot be altered by a simple policy vote. But activists have no understanding or no respect for that so they pressure and publicly shame religious leaders as if the religious leaders could say, “Nevermind, God has changed his mind on morality after thousands of years and sex outside of heterosexual marriage is okay now.” or “Oops, we misinterpreted scripture for thousands of years, but now we understand that that's not what God meant to say.”

Yes, I'm aware that some liberal churches or faiths have actually done just that. But not all organized religions are structured to allow that kind of drastic change to their core teachings.

What I would say to these activists (like the producers of the Believer documentary at the Sundance festival) is, “Look, certain doctrine are unchangeable. The church is never going to stop teasing that sex outside of opposite-sex marriage is sinful. So don't even go there. You're wasting whatever capital you have. But if you accept that really, everything else may be susceptible to positive influence. What do you suggest that the church do differently or better to be welcoming and affirming of gays.”

Now you have something you can work with. But if the activists’s aim is to get the church to change its doctrine, all you'll do is create division and make things worse. And that, as far as I can tell, is what the Believer documentary does.

                                                                                                                                                               -Rich Wyler              

 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

I read a very insightful analysis from a dear friend that really captures my thoughts and reaction to the documentary and the related effort. Shared here with his permission. 

 

Two things strike me as a read the post by your friend, Rich Wyler:

First, many (most?) of us are not “activists” we are fellow church members sitting next to you on the pews each Sunday. 

Second, in Mormonism we do believe in continuing revelation and an ongoing restoration.  Our doctrine has changed and could change again. 

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

First, many (most?) of us are not “activists” we are fellow church members sitting next to you on the pews each Sunday. 

I don't think he talking about these indiviuals, except to the extent that they try to publicly shame the Church into changing. 

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Second, in Mormonism we do believe in continuing revelation and an ongoing restoration.  Our doctrine has changed and could change again. 

I believe Rich would acknowledge that. However, in Mormonism, we believe that those changes come about to God's will, not public shaming campaigns. 

I think the point is that trying to dictate a doctrinal change (even if that's what a person believes is ultimately the right path) is such a blatant rejection of a Faith's fundamental belief. That's not a very good way to create dialogue. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

I read a very insightful analysis from a dear friend that really captures my thoughts and reaction to the documentary and the related effort. Shared here with his permission. 

 

This is really good. Is it published anywhere (besides here in your post, I mean)?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/26/2018 at 2:46 PM, Daniel2 said:

Interesting development.... this article indicates the ads may be an attempt to proactively address the media attention from “Beliver”:

 

 

I think a news story is deficient when it resorts to reporting "speculation." If it can't be supported with hard facts, better to avoid it, lest it get into the realm of "fake news."

Edited January 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is really good. Is it published anywhere (besides here in your post, I mean)?

 

Unfortunately, it was shared in a private Facebook group. I had to ask to share it here. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Unfortunately, it was shared in a private Facebook group. I had to ask to share it here. 

Well, I'm glad you did. Please convey my thanks to your friend.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

I don't think he talking about these indiviuals, except to the extent that they try to publicly shame the Church into changing. 

 

I believe Rich would acknowledge that. However, in Mormonism, we believe that those changes come about to God's will, not public shaming campaigns. 

I think the point is that trying to dictate a doctrinal change (even if that's what a person believes is ultimately the right path) is such a blatant rejection of a Faith's fundamental belief. That's not a very good way to create dialogue. 

Well, this thread isn’t about a public shaming campaign unless the thought is that individuals cannot share their differing experiences and perspectives without them being considered shaming the church. 

While I agree that doctrinal changes cannot be dictated, they do often need to be preceded by a need being identified to act as a respond or catalyst for supplication.  I see that as the point of Dan Reynolds’ work. 

How would you suggest that more dialogue be created?

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, this thread isn’t about a public shaming campaign unless the thought is that individuals cannot share their differing experiences and perspectives without them being considered shaming the church. 

If you seriously believe that Reynolds is just sharing "differing experiences and perspectives" after listening to his interviews, I don't think we have enough common ground to have further discussion on the topic. 

 

 

(Quote function error)

Reynolds said nothing about leaders supplicating for change. He clears states with the premise that the changes he wants are non-negotiable. 

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

While I agree that doctrinal changes cannot be dictated, they do often need to be preceded by a need being identified to act as a respond or catalyst for supplication.  I see that as the point of Dan Reynolds’ work. 

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

How would you suggest that more dialogue be created?

I believe in the current research that shows the best way to create change in people's hearts and minds is through increased personal conversations and respectful dialogue. I know that it seems inefficient and time consuming. The idea of making a big change through a movie or concert or public letter or demonstration or some other dramatic action is certainly an appealing short cut, but I believe those efforts do more harm than good. 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If you seriously believe that Reynolds is just sharing "differing experiences and perspectives" after listening to his interviews, I don't think we have enough common ground to have further discussion on the topic. 

 

 

(Quote function error)

Reynolds said nothing about leaders supplicating for change. He clears states with the premise that the changes he wants are non-negotiable. 

From Reynolds' interview shared in the OP: "A great thing about Mormonism is that they believe in continuing revelation, that God still talks to the prophets, and so they have had changes in the Church. They don’t practice bigamy anymore, like they did in the early days, because God said ‘okay, times are changing, we need to change.’ In the early days of the Church, black people couldn’t join the priesthood, and God came down and said that has to change.”

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I believe in the current research that shows the best way to create change in people's hearts and minds is through increased personal conversations and respectful dialogue. I know that it seems inefficient and time consuming. The idea of making a big change through a movie or concert or public letter or demonstration or some other dramatic action is certainly an appealing short cut, but I believe those efforts do more harm than good. 

I think that the movie is a way to get the personal conversations going.  Again, quoting Reynolds:  “If the leaders aren’t going to change their teachings, then it’s the members who have to say, ‘this doesn’t feel right, and we’re not okay with this".

[kllindley]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From Reynolds' interview shared in the OP: "A great thing about Mormonism is that they believe in continuing revelation, that God still talks to the prophets, and so they have had changes in the Church. They don’t practice bigamy anymore, like they did in the early days, because God said ‘okay, times are changing, we need to change.’ In the early days of the Church, black people couldn’t join the priesthood, and God came down and said that has to change.”

Exactly.  Thanks for finding the quote. Very telling that he could have used "We" to describe Mormonism (you know, if he felt any part of it), that he could have said something about leaders asking for additional guidance, or that he was just trying to share a different perspective and encourage dialogue.    

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that the movie is a way to get the personal conversations going.  Again, quoting Reynolds:  “If the leaders aren’t going to change their teachings, then it’s the members who have to say, ‘this doesn’t feel right, and we’re not okay with this".

I suppose it could be.  The evidence I see suggests that it will give those already unhappy with the current teachings more ammo and make those who do believe in current teachings feel attacked.  I mean that's definitely the reaction that comes up for me when I hear Reynolds talk.  He doesn't make me feel safer talking about my experience.  It makes me feel like he sees me as the enemy.  Like because he has talked to a few people who are unhappy with the Church's sincerely held beliefs about God and the nature of existence, his moral authority is supreme.  He now has the duty to erase such a backwards, bigoted worldview from existence.  

 

Now, from your comments in the past, I don't believe that you personally feel like I am the enemy.  Or that people like me should be forced to abandon our deeply held, personal beliefs about the nature of our own experiences.  But I'm not alone in believing that many of the members who are praising "Believer" absolutely feel this way about us.  

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Exactly.  Thanks for finding the quote. Very telling that he could have used "We" to describe Mormonism (you know, if he felt any part of it), that he could have said something about leaders asking for additional guidance, or that he was just trying to share a different perspective and encourage dialogue.    

I suppose it could be.  The evidence I see suggests that it will give those already unhappy with the current teachings more ammo and make those who do believe in current teachings feel attacked.  I mean that's definitely the reaction that comes up for me when I hear Reynolds talk.  He doesn't make me feel safer talking about my experience.  It makes me feel like he sees me as the enemy.  Like because he has talked to a few people who are unhappy with the Church's sincerely held beliefs about God and the nature of existence, his moral authority is supreme.  He now has the duty to erase such a backwards, bigoted worldview from existence.  

 

Now, from your comments in the past, I don't believe that you personally feel like I am the enemy.  Or that people like me should be forced to abandon our deeply held, personal beliefs about the nature of our own experiences.  But I'm not alone in believing that many of the members who are praising "Believer" absolutely feel this way about us.  

Correct... I certainly don't see you as the enemy.  But I also don't see Reynolds as the enemy.

I think there is room for improvement in the way the church has approached this issue as well as the way Reynolds has approached the issue.

[smac97]

The Village Voice has reviewed Dan Reynolds's documentary, Believer.  I would have thought the Voice, of all media outlets, would be praising it to the skies.  Instead, well, read it here.  A few select quotes:

• "[A] documentary about the LGBTQ experience told through the perspective of a straight white cis dude."
• "[Reynolds is a] lifelong Mormon-turned-emo king who wrote earnest stadium pablum for bro-y Michael Bay movies about space robots."
• "It's moving, too, when Reynolds tries to save the world ... [by] scream-sing[ing] about tolerance."
• "Allies: Is there nothing they can't do?"
• "[Reynolds's film insists] that viewers won’t care about queer issues without a hetero guide."'
• "[The film is filled with] mundanity: Reynolds making calls in his car, logging on to Skype, staging domestic scenes for the camera, weeping over his own heroism."

Wow.  I've been critical of some of the things Reynolds has done, but faulting him for TAQIWBHAW ("Talking About 'Queer Issues' While Being Heterosexual and White") never entered my mind.

-Smac

Edited June 13, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Village Voice has reviewed Dan Reynolds's documentary, Believer.  I would have thought the Voice, of all media outlets, would be praising it to the skies.  Instead, well, read it here.  A few select quotes:

• "[A] documentary about the LGBTQ experience told through the perspective of a straight white cis dude."
• "[Reynolds is a] lifelong Mormon-turned-emo king who wrote earnest stadium pablum for bro-y Michael Bay movies about space robots."
• "It's moving, too, when Reynolds tries to save the world ... [by] scream-sing[ing] about tolerance."
• "Allies: Is there nothing they can't do?"
• "[Reynolds's film insists] that viewers won’t care about queer issues without a hetero guide."'
• "[The film is filled with] mundanity: Reynolds making calls in his car, logging on to Skype, staging domestic scenes for the camera, weeping over his own heroism."

Wow.  I've been critical of some of the things Reynolds has done, but faulting him for TAQIWBHAW ("Talking About 'Queer Issues' While Being Heterosexual and White") never entered my mind.

-Smac

Under the circumstances, I can’t muster much sympathy for Reynolds. 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Village Voice has reviewed Dan Reynolds's documentary, Believer.  I would have thought the Voice, of all media outlets, would be praising it to the skies.  Instead, well, read it here.  A few select quotes:

• "[A] documentary about the LGBTQ experience told through the perspective of a straight white cis dude."
• "[Reynolds is a] lifelong Mormon-turned-emo king who wrote earnest stadium pablum for bro-y Michael Bay movies about space robots."
• "It's moving, too, when Reynolds tries to save the world ... [by] scream-sing[ing] about tolerance."
• "Allies: Is there nothing they can't do?"
• "[Reynolds's film insists] that viewers won’t care about queer issues without a hetero guide."'
• "[The film is filled with] mundanity: Reynolds making calls in his car, logging on to Skype, staging domestic scenes for the camera, weeping over his own heroism."

Wow.  I've been critical of some of the things Reynolds has done, but faulting him for TAQIWBHAW ("Talking About 'Queer Issues' While Being Heterosexual and White") never entered my mind.

-Smac

I'm not a member of the LGBTQI community but  I try to be a supporter/ally where and when I can.

Having said that, I find groups that reject the efforts of allies to be shortsighted and even bigoted in their own way. Sure, Reynolds is a straight, white Cis guy, but that doesn't mean the issue doesn't impact him or the ones he loves. I bristle against anyone telling anyone they don't deserve to have an opinion or work according to their own conscience.

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Under the circumstances, I can’t muster much sympathy for Reynolds. 

To what specific circumstances are you referring?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not a member of the LGBTQI community but  I try to be a supporter/ally where and when I can.

Having said that, I find groups that reject the efforts of allies to be shortsighted and even bigoted in their own way. Sure, Reynolds is a straight, white Cis guy, but that doesn't mean the issue doesn't impact him or the ones he loves. I bristle against anyone telling anyone they don't deserve to have an opinion or work according to their own conscience.

That was my thought, too.

Lesson learned, Village Voice!  Heterosexual white males are not welcome (even as "allies")!

-Smac

Edited June 13, 2018 by smac97

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

To what specific circumstances are you referring?

I can't speak for Scott, but Reynolds used footage from the mormonandgay website without the permission of those being interviewed and edited it to misrepresent what they said.