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

[hope_for_things]

1 hour 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. 

 

I agree with Happy as well, and that is what I'm asking for.  If you don't have evidence that your original comment is correct, that you can share, then you really shouldn't make a statement like that.  Call this a CFR.  You need support your claim that "Reynolds used footage from the mormonandgay website without the permission of those being interviewed and edited it to misrepresent what they said."

I'm most concerned with the 2nd part of this claim, that you're saying Reynolds "edited it to misrepresent what they said".  This is a very strong claim that has some serious ramifications if it is true.  Since those videos are public on the Mormonsandgay site you should be able to produce evidence to support how the videos have been edited to misrepresent, and in what way. 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by hope_for_things

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I did reference private communication. I cannot produce evidence that  conversation took place. If that doesn't meet the criteria for a reference, I am happy to reframe my statement to reflect the source of my information. 

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with Happy as well, and that is what I'm asking for.  If you don't have evidence that your original comment is correct, that you can share, then you really shouldn't make a statement like that.  Call this a CFR.  You need support your claim that "Reynolds used footage from the mormonandgay website without the permission of those being interviewed and edited it to misrepresent what they said."

I'm most concerned with the 2nd part of this claim, that you're saying Reynolds "edited it to misrepresent what they said".  This is a very strong claim that has some serious ramifications if it is true.  Since those videos are public on the Mormonsandgay site you should be able to produce evidence to support how the videos have been edited to misrepresent, and in what way. 

 

Fair enough. My corrected comment would be as follows:

"I have heard from two individuals that Reynolds used footage from the mormonandgay website without their permission and edited it to misrepresent what they said, i.e. took comments out of context."

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Since those videos are public on the Mormonsandgay site you should be able to produce evidence to support how the videos have been edited to misrepresent, and in what way

While the videos are public, the documentary will not be available until after its HBO premiere on June 25. 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Fair enough. My corrected comment would be as follows:

"I have heard from two individuals that Reynolds used footage from the mormonandgay website without their permission and edited it to misrepresent what they said, i.e. took comments out of context."

You could start with explaining which video was supposedly edited and misrepresented and how it’s misrepresented.  Then after June 25th someone could compare it to the Believer documentary to see if that claim actually holds water.  

At this point your statement is just hearsay.  

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  At this point your statement is just hearsay.  

Correct. 

[gopher]

Sad that he didn't devote more time to saving his 7 year marriage than trying to save the world,  That should have been his most important cause. It makes his words ring hollow as he lectures about love, tolerance, and acceptance as he breaks the hearts of his three children by no longer wanting to be with their mother.

"Dad was a hypocrite. He could talk about peace and love to the world but he could never show it to his wife and son"  - Julian Lennon

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Correct. 

Just want to clarify this reply - was your conversation was with the actual individuals involved and was commented on in the documentary?  If that is the case - it is not hearsay.  Hearsay is defined as "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."  What you have stated is not rumor and it is not received from others not involved.  This is a statement about a personal conversation that you had with the individuals involved.  There is no need for a CFR - you have already qualified the statement - and it is not in any way hearsay.  

[Storm Rider]

23 minutes ago, gopher said:

Sad that he didn't devote more time to saving his 7 year marriage than trying to save the world,  That should have been his most important cause. It makes his words ring hollow as he lectures about love, tolerance, and acceptance as he breaks the hearts of his three children by no longer wanting to be with their mother.

"Dad was a hypocrite. He could talk about peace and love to the world but he could never show it to his wife and son"  - Julian Lennon

Yup, a whole lot of do as a say and not as I do.  There are those that for some reason find a cause - any cause except which matters most in their personal lives.  

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Just want to clarify this reply - was your conversation was with the actual individuals involved and was commented on in the documentary?  If that is the case - it is not hearsay.  Hearsay is defined as "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."  What you have stated is not rumor and it is not received from others not involved.  This is a statement about a personal conversation that you had with the individuals involved.  There is no need for a CFR - you have already qualified the statement - and it is not in any way hearsay.  

The conversation was with the actual individuals involved, and in that sense is not hearsay.

I think in a legal sense, it could be considered hearsay. My testimony of a conversation with Party X could not be counted as admissable evidence that Party Y had committed Offense Z. My understanding is that if Party Y told me that they had committed an offense, that would be asmissable. To the extent that I do not have first hand knowldege about the content of the documentary, I am only relying on this person's account.  

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, gopher said:

Sad that he didn't devote more time to saving his 7 year marriage than trying to save the world,  That should have been his most important cause. It makes his words ring hollow as he lectures about love, tolerance, and acceptance as he breaks the hearts of his three children by no longer wanting to be with their mother.

"Dad was a hypocrite. He could talk about peace and love to the world but he could never show it to his wife and son"  - Julian Lennon

While he did talk about the difficulty of being away 90% of the time, there is as far as I can tell no details about the cause of the split or who asked for it.  It could be his wife asking for it as far as we know and him not willing to take it to a fight.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You could start with explaining which video was supposedly edited and misrepresented and how it’s misrepresented.  Then after June 25th someone could compare it to the Believer documentary to see if that claim actually holds water.  

At this point your statement is just hearsay.  

 

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

Correct. 

What I find more interesting than whether it amounts to hearsay is whether Reynolds had permission to lift the content from the mormonandgay.org website. I assume it is copyrighted. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

The conversation was with the actual individuals involved, and in that sense is not hearsay.

I think in a legal sense, it could be considered hearsay. My testimony of a conversation with Party X could not be counted as admissable evidence that Party Y had committed Offense Z. My understanding is that if Party Y told me that they had committed an offense, that would be asmissable. To the extent that I do not have first hand knowldege about the content of the documentary, I am only relying on this person's account.  

That is getting way too legal for this Board.  We are not a court of law nor do we use such standards.  I was just rejecting Hope's position.  You are not hearsay and it was your own conversation with the actual people involved.  You clarified that and yet he still wanted to act like it was meaningless gibberish.  It wasn't.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

That is getting way too legal for this Board.  We are not a court of law nor do we use such standards.  I was just rejecting Hope's position.  You are not hearsay and it was your own conversation with the actual people involved.  You clarified that and yet he still wanted to act like it was meaningless gibberish.  It wasn't.

Thanks. 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

That is getting way too legal for this Board.  We are not a court of law nor do we use such standards.  I was just rejecting Hope's position.  You are not hearsay and it was your own conversation with the actual people involved.  You clarified that and yet he still wanted to act like it was meaningless gibberish.  It wasn't.

The instagram is an interesting confirmation of some sorts, nothing too positive but that it was mentioned at all.  Hopefully details will be available sometime soon for the curious.  

I wonder if they got permission from the Church and just assumed they didn't need it from the individuals or if it was more along the lines of assuming it would be bad PR to go after him, similar to his comment about excommunication....assuming the instagram and klindley are correct.

Seems like a stupid mistake if the latter because even if the Church said nothing, the individuals could claim damages, I would think.  Lawyers, what about it?

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

The instagram is an interesting confirmation of some sorts, nothing too positive but that it was mentioned at all.  Hopefully details will be available sometime soon for the curious.  

I wonder if they got permission from the Church and just assumed they didn't need it from the individuals or if it was more along the lines of assuming it would be bad PR to go after him, similar to his comment about excommunication....assuming the instagram and klindley are correct.

Seems like a stupid mistake if the latter because even if the Church said nothing, the individuals could claim damages, I would think.  Lawyers, what about it?

Do you think the Church would have given permission to use the content if the intent was to bash the Church?

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you think the Church would have given permission to use the content if the intent was to bash the Church?

Yeah, I doubt they would have represented it as bashing.  It is not like the Church was in a defensive posture with Reynolds.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686887/LDS-Church-issues-statement-of-support-for-LGBTQ-concert-event.html

Quote

“We applaud the LoveLoud Festival for LGBTQ Youth’s aim to bring people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God’s children,” says a statement released by the LDS Church. “We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe."

The statement continued: “We share common beliefs, among them the pricelessness of our youth and the value of families. We earnestly hope this festival and other related efforts can build respectful communication, better understanding and civility as we all learn from each other.”

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yeah, I doubt they would have represented it as bashing.  It is not like the Church was in a defensive posture with Reynolds.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686887/LDS-Church-issues-statement-of-support-for-LGBTQ-concert-event.html

 

I just can’t see the Church being OK with this documentary. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just can’t see the Church being OK with this dooocumentary. 

I am not suggesting in the final state.  However, are you aware of the original pitch?

Sounds like it was documenting the concert...which the Church had promoted itself.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting in the final state.  However, are you aware of the original pitch?

Sounds like it was documenting the concert...which the Church had promoted itself.

I’ll grant the possblty that Reynolds was not altogether forthcoming with his intent and that he blindsided the Church. It’s a real shame if that’s what happened. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll grant the possblty that Reynolds was not altogether forthcoming with his intent and that he blindsided the Church. It’s a real shame if that’s what happened. 

Or maybe he simply changed his mind as the process went on as often happens from what I read.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or maybe he simply changed his mind as the process went on as often happens from what I read.

It would still be a shame if the Church got pulled into cooperating with him on it, considering how it turned out. 

[california boy]

You all seem to be talking about a movie you haven't even seen, trying to read into one review what the movie might be about and then criticizing  Dan Reynolds for tricking the church into doing something they may not have been tricked into doing and saying what a shame that ever happened.  What is clear is that any project a Mormon does that appears to support the LGBT community must be a horrible idea and he should have never attempted to do such a movie.  

If every single Mormon doesn't treat the LGGBT community the exact same way as they are suppose to and completely agree with rhe leaders of the Church  on every part of this issue, then it is an attack on the church and should never have been made if the person is a "real" faithful member of the Church.  

Quick to judge and condemn, even when you haven't even watched what you are quick to judge and condemn.  THAT says a lot.

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

The conversation was with the actual individuals involved, and in that sense is not hearsay.

I think in a legal sense, it could be considered hearsay. My testimony of a conversation with Party X could not be counted as [admissible] evidence that Party Y had committed Offense Z. My understanding is that if Party Y told me that they had committed an offense, that would be [admissible]. To the extent that I do not have first hand [knowledge] about the content of the documentary, I am only relying on this person's account.  

It depends.  Under the Rules of Evidence, in a criminal context*, if Party X told you he had committed the offense, while that is hearsay (since it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Party X committed the crime), it is admissible under one of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule known as Statement Against Penal Interest.  Laying braggarts aside who wish to increase their "street cred" by broadcasting far and wide the idea that they did things they did not actually do, the idea is that, generally, a normal person under normal circumstances won't say he committed a crime he did not actually commit. 

If Party X told you he said one thing but video was edited to make it seem as though he said another, while I'm not a lawyer and while I haven't researched the issue, while the probative value of your statement, standing alone, might be debatable (a trier-of-fact, i.e., a judge or a jury, would have to determine how much weight to give it), I would think it would be admissible.  (I reiterate: I am not a lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal advice.  Anyone with questions about the Rules of Evidence, about the Hearsay Rule, or about any and all similar matters should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the matter arose. )

*Frankly, I'm not sure how the Hearsay Rule operates in a civil context, but its exceptions may be even more liberally applied civilly than they are criminally, because the standard of proof is different (beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases vs. by a preponderance of the evidence [say, 50%, plus a smidge] in civil cases) and what's at stake isn't as dire (potentially, one may lose one's life if he receives the maximum sentence in a criminal capital case or he may lose his freedom, versus mere monetary damages in civil cases).    

Edited June 14, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You all seem to be talking about a movie you haven't even seen, trying to read into one review what the movie might be about and then criticizing  Dan Reynolds for tricking the church into doing something they may not have been tricked into doing and saying what a shame that ever happened.  What is clear is that any project a Mormon does that appears to support the LGBT community must be a horrible idea and he should have never attempted to do such a movie.  

If every single Mormon doesn't treat the LGGBT community the exact same way as they are suppose to and completely agree with rhe leaders of the Church  on every part of this issue, then it is an attack on the church and should never have been made if the person is a "real" faithful member of the Church.  

Quick to judge and condemn, even when you haven't even watched what you are quick to judge and condemn.  THAT says a lot.

I agree.  If this were a movie produced by an active Mormon regarding a church history event, etc., these same posters would be very defensive if someone was negatively discussing it who hadn't even seen it yet.

I've read positive things online about Reynold's movie that could be posted here, but many choose to zero in on one negative opinion.....while not waiting to even view the movie themselves.  I'd love to hear and read the thoughts of those here who actually take the time to see the movie.  Those are what I'll wait to read.

Edited June 14, 2018 by ALarson