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

[smac97]

12 hours 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

Let's not go there.  The failure of a marriage is difficult enough as it is.  It's not something that should bandied about in the public sphere.

His documentary and public statements against the Church?  Sure.  They are open for critique.  But let's leave him alone about his marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

No need for histrionics.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

More histrionics.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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 think we should take a wait-and-see approach to the film.  However, Dan Reynolds's public statements, which plainly distort the Church's teachings and cast it in a very negative light, are certainly up for critique.  And I think it is these statements, which likely reflect the tone and content of his movie, that are the primary basis for suspiction about . . . the tone and content of his movie.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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 don't see the symmetry here.  A positive portrayal of the Church is not the same as a negative portrayal of the Church.  Many of the people on this board have extensive experience with the Church and love and appreciate it, and hence are understandably averse to negative portrayals of an organization with which they have first-hand experience.  Moreover, Dan Reynolds has made all sorts of public statements disparaging the Church, substantially distorting its teachings, and generally trying to cast it in the worst possible light.  It's a reasonable guess that his movie will reflect his various statements about the Church.

The Village Voice has reviewed the film and characterized Reynolds's portrayal of himself in it as "touchingly unnerved when the stewards of his faith double down on anti-gay invective during a spike in teen suicides," with him "scream-sing[ing] about tolerance within spitting distance of the Church of Latter-day Saints HQ."  The film portrays the Church's teachings as "sanctioned bigotry."

We're not exactly operating in an information vacuum here.  Nevertheless, I agree that we should, in the main, wait and see the movie before substantively critiquing it.

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

This review by The Hollywood Reporter seems pretty even-handed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

 

I don't know if you are right or not - it sounds a little bit of seeking out an echo chamber for your own opinion.  

Think about it - you talked to two friends that were quoted in a documentary.  Both friends indicate that their statements were taken out of context and presented in such a way that it was not a reflection of their real-life experiences, but were used to further the agenda of a documentary.  Just being honest about this - you have yet to see the documentary - do you think, "Oh yeah, this will be great and an honest, accurate representation!" or maybe, is it at all possible, you just might have a negative impression?

Assuming that you had the natural inclination to doubt the veracity and integrity of the documentary - if you were attacked as just being a shill for the Church and never being able to view anything, particularly the sacred cow of LGBTQ, in a neutral manner - what would you think of the criticism?  Yeah, I thought so.  That is about how I feel about these types of mindless, self-serving attacks.  I don't live to fulfill someone's agenda.  No, I will not be manipulated by the social bandwagon.  Yes, I actually do try and study this issue and I have concluded that the homosexual lifestyle is not healthy for the individual and it is not healthy for the community/society.  How often do I need to rethink that conclusion?

Edited June 15, 2018 by Storm Rider

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours 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

Way to go full-out negative by gossiping about the guy's marriage. As if it is relevant in any way. Kind of a jerky move, dude.

Edited June 14, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[gopher]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Way to go full-out negative by gossiping about the guy's marriage. As if it is relevant in any way. Jerk move, dude.

Sorry. Dad.  Can I still borrow the car this weekend?

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

... This review by The Hollywood Reporter seems pretty even-handed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmmm.

Ohhhh-kay.

I wonder if we read the same review.  What, exactly, did you find "even-handed" about it?  That it didn't offer unqualified, gushing praise of Mr. Reynolds' work? That the reviewer didn't open fire with all four barrels blazing (a double-barreled shotgun in each hand) against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Sorry. Dad.  Can I still borrow the car this weekend?

Nope. You're grounded  

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.

Ohhhh-kay.

I wonder if we read the same review.  What, exactly, did you find "even-handed" about it?  That it didn't offer unqualified, gushing praise of Mr. Reynolds' work? That the reviewer didn't open fire with all four barrels blazing (a double-barreled shotgun in each hand) against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Yep.  That's about as much even-handedness as we can expect from the Hollywood Reporter.

And I was thinking more about it's assessment of the film, not the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

... This review by The Hollywood Reporter seems pretty even-handed.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

36 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.

Ohhhh-kay.

I wonder if we read the same review.  What, exactly, did you find "even-handed" about it?  That it didn't offer unqualified, gushing praise of Mr. Reynolds' work? That the reviewer didn't open fire with all four barrels blazing (a double-barreled shotgun in each hand) against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  That's about as much even-handedness as we can expect from the Hollywood Reporter.

And I was thinking more about it's assessment of the film, not the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough.  Thanks for clarifying.  

Edited June 14, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nope. You're grounded  

Sorry, Dad.  

  

[gopher]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Let's not go there.  The failure of a marriage is difficult enough as it is.  It's not something that should bandied about in the public sphere.

His documentary and public statements against the Church?  Sure.  They are open for critique.  But let's leave him alone about his marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree.  He made his divorce public on Twitter and in Interviews.  If his message was gun control it wouldn't matter.  But his message is all about love and not giving up.  He's been very public with his marriage and family.  It's my opinion that he is weakened in his effectiveness now that he's divorcing his wife.  It's especially sad since there are babies involved.  Maybe he should have stopped touring or working on his documentary to try to repair things.  I don't expect anyone else to see it the way I do.  I don't think he's a bad person and I hope he can reconcile with his wife.

It's hard to lecture others about their behaviour since you open your own life up for examination.  It's a lesson the "family values" politicians never learn.

 

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

I disagree.  He made his divorce public on Twitter and in Interviews. 

He's a public figure.  I'm not sure he "made [it] public" as much as he acknowledged that it's happened (or that it's happening).

In any event, we aren't really in a position to judge why a family falls apart.  We can surmise, I suppose, but I think it's better to keep such things to ourselves.

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

If his message was gun control it wouldn't matter. 

Because gun control is a public/civil/legal issue that involves and affects all of us.  The dissolution of Dan Reynolds's marriage does not.

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

But his message is all about love and not giving up.  He's been very public with his marriage and family.  It's my opinion that he is weakened in his effectiveness now that he's divorcing his wife. 

Maybe so.  But there's seldom any value to publicly critiquing another person's divorce.  We may as well criticize him for having too few children.  Or too many.  

The decision to marry is an intensely personal one.  So too is the decision to end a marriage.  I think the better thing to do is to abstain from publicly speaking on such things.

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

It's especially sad since there are babies involved.  Maybe he should have stopped touring or working on his documentary to try to repair things. 

If you were in a position of stewardship or friendship, you might be in a position to tell him that.  But we aren't in such a position.

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

I don't expect anyone else to see it the way I do.  I don't think he's a bad person and I hope he can reconcile with his wife.

So do I.  But it's not really our business to publicly fault him on this point.  It's a decision that is his and his wife's, that's all.

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

It's hard to lecture others about their behaviour since you open your own life up for examination.  It's a lesson the "family values" politicians never learn.

Yes, he runs the risk of having his personal life overly-scrutinized by strangers.  Let's not indulge in that.

We can critique Dan Reynolds's opinions and statements about public issues all the day long.  But as for his marriage and/or divorce, I think we should wish him and his family the best, but otherwise leave them be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He's a public figure.  I'm not sure he "made [it] public" as much as he acknowledged that it's happened (or that it's happening).

In any event, we aren't really in a position to judge why a family falls apart.  We can surmise, I suppose, but I think it's better to keep such things to ourselves.

Because gun control is a public/civil/legal issue that involves and affects all of us.  The dissolution of Dan Reynolds's marriage does not.

Maybe so.  But there's seldom any value to publicly critiquing another person's divorce.  We may as well criticize him for having too few children.  Or too many.  

The decision to marry is an intensely personal one.  So too is the decision to end a marriage.  I think the better thing to do is to abstain from publicly speaking on such things.

If you were in a position of stewardship or friendship, you might be in a position to tell him that.  But we aren't in such a position.

So do I.  But it's not really our business to publicly fault him on this point.  It's a decision that is his and his wife's, that's all.

Yes, he runs the risk of having his personal life overly-scrutinized by strangers.  Let's not indulge in that.

We can critique Dan Reynolds's opinions and statements about public issues all the day long.  But as for his marriage and/or divorce, I think we should wish him and his family the best, but otherwise leave them be.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have to agree. In regards to his decisions to further exacerbate the distress and turmoil of LGBT youth and adults in Utah and throughout the Church, I am about as critical of Dan Reynolds as possible. I have a very low opinion of his moral character and seriously question his sincerity in this advocacy.  Based on the way he has gone about it, I find it much more likely that he is in fact trying to use the LGBT issue to boost his personal reputation and popularity, rather than using his position to actually help the LGBT community. His words and actions have loudly and clearly signaled to me that he is not an ally and that he views me as an enemy. 

And yet, I can't see any need to attack his personal life. I think there is more than enough to criticize in his work and public statements. Attacking the irrelevant personal details distracts attention away from the real damage he is doing. 

[gopher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nope. You're grounded  

But I have a date with the bishop's daughter. It took me, like forever, to ask her out.

[smac97]

The Deseret News has responded to remarks made by Ellen DeGeneres when she had Dan Reynolds on her show:

Quote

We all must come together to address teen suicide.

Recent news coverage of high-profile deaths by suicide has drawn attention to a serious national crisis. Since 1999, suicide rates increased 30 percent nationwide. As more people in the U.S. become acquainted with the pain and sorrow of suicide, the search for causes and solutions has become increasingly public. It is critical, as we search for answers, that we proceed in a unified, data informed manner.

Certainly, suicide is an issue that affects everyone, and we all carry the responsibility to work towards hope and healing. Blame, specifically along political or religious lines, will divide us when a more collaborative approach is needed to combat the rise in suicides, particularly among teens.

Some have recently tried to point to religion as a cause of teen suicide. However, the vast preponderance of social science research suggests just the opposite: religion is often a preventative factor. As stated in the 2016 International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, research “tend(s) to support the basic premise that religion provides protection against suicide risk.” Thus, what some dub a cause of suicide may in fact be a resource for many teens and others who struggle.

Yep.  This ongoing effort to blame religionists for increases in suicide has been fairly ugly.

Quote

Last week, lead singer for Imagine Dragons, Dan Reynolds, stopped by the daytime talk show, "Ellen." The host, Ellen DeGeneres, suggested that suicide in Utah may be related to the “shame” caused by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).

“The leading cause of death for Utah kids ages 11 to 17 is suicide,” she said, reading from a card. “Suicide in Utah has increased 141 percent because of the shame they feel from the Mormon Church.”

We commend Ellen and Dan for discussing teen suicide. It is of deep concern to any community, including highly religious people. All need to work together to address suicide’s multiple causes. However, attributing increases in suicide deaths in Utah to the LDS Church is not based in research.

Research in Utah suggests something quite different. For instance, the 2015 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment (a survey of over 27,000 Utah youths) found that teens who attended religious services more often (a few times a month to once a week) were less likely to have suicidal thoughts or suicidal attempts than those who attended less frequently. Further, teens identifying as Mormon were less likely to report suicidal thoughts or attempts.

Religious observance by LDS youth reduces suicidal ideation.

So when can we expect a retraction from the likes of Dan Reynolds, Mama Dragons, and all the others who have been falsely advocating a contrary proposition?

Quote

Another more recent Utah study of 600 families with a teen (the Family Foundations of Youth Development study, 2016-2017) found the same: more religious teens and Mormon teens were significantly less likely to experience suicidal thoughts. Teens who had previously been Mormon (had left the Mormon Church) had similar rates of suicidal thoughts as their non-Mormon peers. As we consider these findings in a highly homogenous religious state like Utah, we acknowledge that a higher rate of suicidal ideation for non-LDS youths in Utah may speak to a need for better integration of non-LDS youths within schools and local communities.

So even formerly-LDS teens don't have an increased risk of suicide (and are instead on par with "their non-Mormon peers."

Again, will Dan Reynolds and the Mama Dragons retract or reconsider their various accusatory statements predicated on the (increasingly falsified) notion that Mormonism is driving kids to suicide?

Quote

It is also important to note, as Ellen suggests, that those who identify as LGBTQ are at particular risk. This group deserves focused and compassionate attention. In 2015, the CDC estimated that in the U.S., serious thoughts of suicide among gay, lesbian and bisexual teens was 2.4 times higher than for heterosexual teens (42.8 percent versus 17.7 percent). For the states where data are available, these rates for LGB youths are similar throughout the U.S., both in religious states such as Arkansas at 37.9 percent (a highly religious state, according to a 2016 Pew report), as well as less-religious states such as Massachusetts at 40.8 percent (the least religious state, according to Pew). Unfortunately, these data are not available for Utah.

Actual data on Utah and teen LGBTQ suicide are sparse. Data on the sexual orientation of youths who died by suicide between 2011-2015 in Utah were limited, with only 40 decedents having information on sexual orientation. Of those, six were identified as gay or lesbian. State actors have made recent efforts to begin collecting more data. Beyond Utah, one study suggests that sexual minority college students who view religion or spiritual beliefs as important are at greater risk for suicidal ideation and attempts.

However, this study did not ask about specific religious affiliation or religious behaviors. Other research suggests religious affiliation can be protective against suicidality for at least some LGB adults. Because the research on sexual minorities, religiosity and suicidality is so limited, and at times contradictory, it is critical that constructive dialogue and collaborative research occur across thorny religious lines. There is a desperate need for research that compassionately and accurately reflects the experiences of sexual minority and gender diverse teens as they develop into adulthood. This is particularly true in settings where a teen’s growing awareness of their sexuality may be in perceived conflict with the religious practices or spiritual beliefs of family and community.

Wonderful words.  Measured words.  Thoughtful words.

Quote

With Ellen and Dan, we believe it to be the obligation of each organization (religious or not) to work for kindness, compassion and empathy. No person should come away from their employment, their school, their family or their church believing their life is hopeless or without purpose. Regarding those who are LGBTQ, a statement by Elder M. Russell Ballard, the current acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the LDS Church, applies to all: “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.”

It is also important to note that suggesting religion (or any one religious organization) is a primary cause of suicide deaths among youths is neither accurate nor helpful. This is especially true when research suggests that religion may be a protective factor relating to suicide for many individuals across the life span. We all want to prevent suicide, and the field of suicide prevention requires nuance.

As Utah’s suicide prevention research coordinator, Michael Staley, wisely stated this week in the Deseret News: “It’s never just one thing. Anybody who reduces suicide or an explanation for our rate of suicide in any population to one or two things is sadly mistaken. I think that mentality is an impediment to us moving forward."

"Neither accurate nor helpful."  Yep.

Huzzah for the Deseret News!

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So when can we expect a retraction from the likes of Dan Reynolds, Mama Dragons, and all the others who have been falsely advocating a contrary proposition?

What statement by Reynolds are you referring to?  I didn't see him quoted in the article (only Ellen).....but maybe I missed it.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Maybe he should have stopped touring or working on his documentary to try to repair things. 

And he may have asked to do this and his wife refused.  Or it may never have occurred to him...or they tried it and it failed.

We have no knowledge of the inner dynamics of their relationship or how much time they have spent together save what they shared and the little I have read indicates the wife was very invested in his career as well, a creative partner as well as a family one, and they intend her to continue to do so.

It is gossip imo to act as if we know more than we do.

He shared very little and asked that the family get privacy for the rest.  In condemning him, I believe one can stray into behaviour that harms his wife and daughter's even if one believes Reynolds himself doesn't deserve that consideration.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What statement by Reynolds are you referring to?  I didn't see him quoted in the article (only Ellen).....but maybe I missed it.

Come on. Do you really need this spelled out for you?

Quote

Even though my faith isn’t always the strongest and my beliefs are more of my own, the world typically thinks of me as a Mormon, so I feel like I’m an activist for bigotry in some way. One of those ways is that Mormons believe the doctrine is if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful. That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children. To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect; to tell someone they need to change their inner-most being is setting up someone for an unhealthy life and unhealthy foundation. I know a lot of Mormon youth who are gay and hide it because they feel as though God hates them or God is judging them. In Utah, the No. 1 reason for death among teenagers is suicide.

(Emphasis mine.)

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/7842023/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-evolve-bigotry-mormonism-interview

And this was just the first hit I got on a Google search. I haven't bothered looking at any of the other hits.

"Activist for bigotry"? Memo to Reynolds: With "activists" like you, we don't need enemies.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What statement by Reynolds are you referring to?  I didn't see him quoted in the article (only Ellen).....but maybe I missed it.

See, e.g., here, here, here ("Seeing members of the Church spurned for their sexual orientation, what has been most devastating for Reynolds is witnessing skyrocketing rates of teen suicide in Utah as a result of what he believes are the Church’s policies."), here ("Tired of seeing the teenage suicide rate in Utah climb, Dan believes there's a real problem in the Mormon culture and he wants to inspire change."), here ("They expect gay people to be celibate for their whole life, or enter a mixed orientation marriage, which we know is extremely dangerous and leads to suicide and depression and anxiety."), here (same link) ("Youths aren’t happy, there are high reports of anxiety, and the suicide rate is just devastating, and a lot of it has to do with the church going to war on the LGBT community when Prop 8 went down.").

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Come on. Do you really need this spelled out for you?

I read the article and did not see any statements made by Reynolds....so what would he retract?

I don't follow him and was just asking an honest question.  If he's given his opinion that religion enters into the topic of suicide, then I agree with him.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See, e.g., here, here, here ("Seeing members of the Church spurned for their sexual orientation, what has been most devastating for Reynolds is witnessing skyrocketing rates of teen suicide in Utah as a result of what he believes are the Church’s policies."), here ("Tired of seeing the teenage suicide rate in Utah climb, Dan believes there's a real problem in the Mormon culture and he wants to inspire change."), here ("They expect gay people to be celibate for their whole life, or enter a mixed orientation marriage, which we know is extremely dangerous and leads to suicide and depression and anxiety."), here (same link) ("Youths aren’t happy, there are high reports of anxiety, and the suicide rate is just devastating, and a lot of it has to do with the church going to war on the LGBT community when Prop 8 went down.").

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok.  I thought you were referencing the article you were posting about.

Reading his comments, I actually tend to generally agree with him.  I'm not into stating things quite as extreme as he does, but in general....he's pretty accurate, IMO.  There are examples of each of those statements being true from what I've seen.  I do think one needs to be careful with just making blanket statements though.  I do wonder if he's seen a lot more than most regarding this now too.

I don't know if you've read through the comments under the article you posted about, but some of those are very interesting too (on both sides of this topic).

Edited June 14, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I read the article and did not see any statements made by Reynolds....so what would he retract?

 

Maybe nothing in that particular article. But it's not like he hasn't made such statements in other settings.

Quote

I don't follow him and was just asking an honest question.  If he's given his opinion that religion enters into the topic of suicide, then I agree with him.

This minimizes what he said in the quote I provided, wherein he implied that Mormonism is to blame for rampant teen suicides.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe nothing in that particular article. But it's not like he hasn't made such statements in other settings.

This minimizes what he said in the quote I provided, wherein he implied that Mormonism is to blame for teen suicides.

I didn't see him state anything like that in the article (that's why I asked).

I'd imagine he's speaking the truth regarding some cases of teen suicide.  Does he claim all of them are because of Mormonism?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see him state anything like that in the article (that's why I asked).

I'd imagine he's speaking the truth regarding some cases of teen suicide.  Does he claim all of them are because of Mormonism?

I had already added a word to my post, "rampant." So it's "rampant teen suicides."