smac97 Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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. Really? I hadn't heard this. Have we discussed it here?
SouthernMo Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, kllindley said: 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. Whoa. Not cool. And I generally like what I know of Dan Reynolds. Any good point should stand on it’s own merit and not need embellishments or dramatization.
Calm Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) Quote A better doc would have used its superstar lead as a linchpin, structuring it so that he’s absorbed into the cause, gradually upstaged by those directly affected by sanctioned bigotry. The above is from the article. This is the difficulty of using celebrity allies for any minority causes...too often it becomes about them and not those they are trying to bring attention to (well, hopefully most of them; I can think of a couple of people who are more likely being "allies" to bring attention to themselves and not those discriminated against, neglected, etc). One needs attention getters and these are usually victims of extreme or unusual suffering (pictures of kids in pain often go viral)**** or celebrities. The problem with the latter is all that many remember is the celebrity is a humanitarian while being vague about the actual cause. For example, Angelina Jolie is pretty famous for her charity work and I believe extremely committed...can you name the causes she supports? It seems to me this is what the article is complaining about, the cause is not the center of the film but merely a backdrop to portray the celebrity's fine qualities (not saying it actually does this or was intended to be a promo vehicle for Reynolds, just that this is the perception of the Voice...I haven't seen the doc, so won't judge). It is similar to disaster films of far locations that still manage to find white British or American heroes to stage the story around instead of locals. Like The Impossible with Naomi Watts which was based on a real family vacationing in the area---who were Spanish (Belon, not Bennett)---as if there weren't enough locals to find a compelling story from. *****I would be surprised if anyone doesn't know the photo I am referring to when I say "Napalm Girl". Contributed to ending American involvement in the Vietnam war (even though apparently Americans had nothing to do with the bombing, but helped saved the girl's life...who defected to Canada in 92, btw) and thus possibly the unification of Vietnam: http://allthatsinteresting.com/napalm-girl https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc Edited June 13, 2018 by Calm 1
cinepro Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 On 12/2/2017 at 4:28 PM, smac97 said: Yep. Further, the Law of Chastity, formulated as prohibiting sexual relations except as between a husband and wife, really does not change in a polygamy context. In LDS polygamous marriages, each wife was only married to the husband. Not to each other. Not to the collectively family. Just to the husband. So the formula of Sex = Husband + Wife worked just fine. Thanks, -Smac That's not what the Law of Chastity is (as far as it is defined in the Temple). I suspect the wording will change eventually, but for now, it doesn't say that sexual relations are only between a "husband and wife."
kllindley Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: Really? I hadn't heard this. Have we discussed it here? I don't know that we did. If I remember correctly, that didn't come to light until later this spring. 12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Whoa. Not cool. And I generally like what I know of Dan Reynolds. Any good point should stand on it’s own merit and not need embellishments or dramatization. Agreed.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, cinepro said: That's not what the Law of Chastity is (as far as it is defined in the Temple). I suspect the wording will change eventually, but for now, it doesn't say that sexual relations are only between a "husband and wife." If you “suspect the wording will change eventually” I wonder why you are even fussing about it.
smac97 Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, cinepro said: That's not what the Law of Chastity is (as far as it is defined in the Temple). Yes, it is. See here: Quote RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION LEGALIZING SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES June 29, 2015 Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. ... Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27‐28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). ... A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality. Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established." Yep. Just now, cinepro said: I suspect the wording will change eventually, but for now, it doesn't say that sexual relations are only between a "husband and wife." Yes, it does. It is unequivocal and clear. Thanks, -Smac 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: To what specific circumstances are you referring? 1 hour ago, kllindley said: 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. Wow. I hadn’t heard this either. I was referring generally to his bashing the Church based on his own personal politics, but this, if true, adds fuel to the fire. I have particular contempt for those who will twist someone’s words by taking them out of context. For the record, I have long found celebrities annoying who use their fame to push liberal causes as though the ability to sing, dance, play act or play a musical instrument affords expertise in political or social issues. The fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is the target here makes this particular instance especially egregious to me. Edited June 13, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
hope_for_things Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, kllindley said: I don't know that we did. If I remember correctly, that didn't come to light until later this spring. Agreed. I haven't heard about any misrepresentation through editing of videos. Can you share links? 1
kllindley Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I haven't heard about any misrepresentation through editing of videos. Can you share links? I don't believe his full documentary is available to be viewed online yet.
Calm Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 There was this, but it is a little unclear if she was completely ignorant or just not told her clip made the cut: "I loved the documentary. I was a little disappointed that my friend’s clip from MormonAndGay.org was shown, but she wasn’t informed as she wasn’t invited to any red carpet events or premiere showing of the movie." https://www.instagram.com/p/BeUZjIMlKB_/ 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 On 12/1/2017 at 1:18 AM, kiwi57 said: The "younger generation" aren't simply going to "assume leadership." They will be called into positions of leadership, as they demonstrate, inter alia, (1) courage to stand for truth and righteousness when such a stand is unpopular with the world, (2) an understanding and acceptance of core LDS doctrine, including (but not limited to) the Plan of Salvation, Eternal Families and Eternal Marriage. I've capitalized these because they are absolutely core and absolutely key doctrines - and they absolutely require opposite-sex marriage. Sorry. But if it makes you feel better to imagine that a religious dilettante whose doctrinal knowledge starts and ends in three chords represents the "wave of the future," then please don't let any serious thinking slow you down. It’s posts like this that make me miss kiwi57.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That was my thought, too. Lesson learned, Village Voice! Heterosexual white males are not welcome (even as "allies")! -Smac If all I cared about was the opinion of a writer at the Village Voice you'd be right
HappyJackWagon Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 1 hour ago, kllindley said: 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. This is a substantial claim. Can you provide evidence that Reynolds did what you are suggesting? Or do you have links to stories about this? I'd never heard anything like this. If it's true it should be addressed. If it's an unfounded claim, then that is unfair too. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If all I cared about was the opinion of a writer at the Village Voice you'd be right VillageVoice is a pretty good barometer for that sort of bent, don’t you think?
HappyJackWagon Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: VillageVoice is a pretty good barometer for that sort of bent, don’t you think? A barometer? Maybe. But the Village Voice doesn't speak for everyone in the community. They're not a monolith.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: A barometer? Maybe. But the Village Voice doesn't speak for everyone in the community. They're not a monolith. “Speaking for” is one thing; reflecting the attitude of is another.
cinepro Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you “suspect the wording will change eventually” I wonder why you are even fussing about it. Because the wording of the current covenant is what people are covenanting to. 1
cinepro Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Yes, it is. See here: "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established." Yep. Yes, it does. It is unequivocal and clear. Thanks, -Smac I'm just referring to the covenant regarding chastity in the Temple. Under the current wording, Temple-goer Bob could leave his wife, legally marry Hubert (another man), and have sexual relations with him and not be in violation of the wording of the covenant. And regarding polygamy, if the definition of chastity includes legal marriage, then that opens a whole 'nother can of worms. 1
kllindley Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 12 minutes ago, cinepro said: I'm just referring to the covenant regarding chastity in the Temple. Under the current wording, Temple-goer Bob could leave his wife, legally marry Hubert (another man), and have sexual relations with him and not be in violation of the wording of the covenant. And regarding polygamy, if the definition of chastity includes legal marriage, then that opens a whole 'nother can of worms. A total aside, I have always understood the "lawfully" part of the covenant to refer to God's laws. Ergo, SSM would still be violating the covenant. 1
smac97 Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, cinepro said: I'm just referring to the covenant regarding chastity in the Temple. I understood that. Quote Under the current wording, Temple-goer Bob could leave his wife, legally marry Hubert (another man), and have sexual relations with him and not be in violation of the wording of the covenant. I don't think so. First, "legally marry[ing] Hubert" is an apostate act, which would disqualify Bob from attending the temple. This is, I think, one of the reasons the Brethren implemented the 2015 policy changes. Second, the Church has been extremely clear regarding the prohibitions against both polygamy and same-sex marriage. There is no good faith construction of the temple covenant that accommodates polygamy or same-sex marriage. None. Third, both the New Testament and the Doctrine & Covenants warn against "wrest[ing]" the scriptures (Peter 3:16 and D&C 10:63). The latter scripture is particularly apt: Quote 62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me. 63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them. The Brethren have done an admirable job and providing prompt and unambiguous clarification as to how the Gospel functions in relation to the innovation that is same-sex marriage. So there really isn't any room for "contention concerning the points of [the Lord's] doctrine" about same-sex marriage. The "point" has been amply established, thus leaving the Saints to either accept, or not accept, the unified voice of the Brethren as reflected in the Proclamation and other sources which address this issue. Quote And regarding polygamy, if the definition of chastity includes legal marriage, then that opens a whole 'nother can of worms. Well, no. Participating in polygamy is, like same-sex marriage, an apostate act which is expressly forbidden in OD-1 and which precludes any such participant from attending the temple. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 13, 2018 by smac97 2
kllindley Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is a substantial claim. Can you provide evidence that Reynolds did what you are suggesting? Or do you have links to stories about this? I'd never heard anything like this. If it's true it should be addressed. If it's an unfounded claim, then that is unfair too. I do not have an internet page that I can refer to for evidence. The context in which the videos are shown in the documentary does not accurately represent the individuals' experience or opinion as shared on the Church's website. I only have knowledge from private communication that the footage was used without permission of the individuals.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, cinepro said: Because the wording of the current covenant is what people are covenanting to. See what Smac has posted regarding good-faith construction and wresting the scriptures. I entertain no fantasy that the Lord of hosts is going to uphold someone in endeavoring to rely on semantic loopholes to violate His laws with impunity. Edited June 13, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
cinepro Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, no. Participating in polygamy is, like same-sex marriage, an apostate act which is expressly forbidden in OD-1 and which precludes any such participant from attending the temple. I was referring to 19th century polygamy and its illegal nature.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 49 minutes ago, kllindley said: I do not have an internet page that I can refer to for evidence. The context in which the videos are shown in the documentary does not accurately represent the individuals' experience or opinion as shared on the Church's website. I only have knowledge from private communication that the footage was used without permission of the individuals. In that case, I don't think it's a fair claim to make. Casting aspersions on Dan Reynolds personally and the entire project based on unfounded claims seems like a precarious position to take. Unless you have first had info or have spoken (privately communicated) with someone who feels they were misquoted I think the claim should be retracted. 1
Recommended Posts