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

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The similar leaving a post with throwing out "I have said my piece, now you can bomb me" kind of statements are developing into a pet peeve of mine.  One, it labels people as jerks before they do jerky stuff and second, it tends to frame any criticism as attacks.

There is a good chance when that is said that strong criticisms, even attacks will happen based on the opinions or references made, but if one believes whatever one says is going to be viewed as an attack, why bother being careful in phrasing?  Thus it immediately ups the negativity.  And there have been several times I have seen when there is no definite reason for criticisms except for the assumption that those who might have some concerns are out of control jerks who delight in pounding one or that those who disagree with one only do it because of who one is and not what one just said.

(I don't remember specific people doing this, just that it happens and seems to be happening more.)

I'll try and refrain from that particular form of humor, as clearly it isn't funny. 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you seem to do that sort of thing often, and it tends to imply others are passing judgment on you that they might not be doing. Ostensibly, it is self-deprecation, but by implication, it is directed outward. 

Dan Peterson does it a lot in my view.  I am curious if it bugs you the same way or because you know him better, it hits you differently. (Serious question as I am curious, I am trying to figure out why sometimes people can have me on the floor busting a gut and other times they get me rolling my eyes and "enough already!!!").

Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Dan Peterson does it a lot in my view.  I am curious if it bugs you the same way or because you know him better, it hits you differently.

You're right, he does. I will do better. 

I'm under no illusions about what some people think of me. I just should focus on making reasoned points and stay away from the rest of it. Or maybe I just need to get back to my novel. 

[Calm]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I'll try and refrain from that particular form of humor, as clearly it isn't funny. 

The self deprecating stuff can be very funny at times, and if one only did the 'now pile on' bit on rare occasions, I think that would be funny to me as well.  But when it starts to become common, like all humor, it gets old fast.  And it starts sounding more like playing the victim to me.  Some humor works, some doesn't.  Got to know your audience, I guess.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The self deprecating stuff can be very funny at times, and if one only did the 'now pile on' bit on rare occasions, I think that would be funny to me as well.  But when it starts to become common, like all humor, it gets old fast.  And it starts sounding more like playing the victim to me.  Some humor works, some doesn't.  Got to know your audience, I guess.

FWIW, I feel neither judged nor victimized here. I wouldn't have come back if I did. One of the issues with my Aspergers is that I have a hard time reading people, especially reading how I come across. So, I appreciate the correction.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You're right, he does. I will do better. 

I'm under no illusions about what some people think of me. I just should focus on making reasoned points and stay away from the rest of it. Or maybe I just need to get back to my novel. 

It is good to have varied opinions and ideas.  I would be gone quite quickly if we lost that.  And .I like to hear about people's lives and how they make theory into action, etc.  Making it personal, like it is a debate we are counting points on or that everything is going to be a judgment of righteousness, how nice one is, that it is all about the person and not the points....I think that is where it gets problematic.  Thick skin probably helps or finding someone off board to rant to so one can then post a mild response (my solution).

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, I feel neither judged nor victimized here. I wouldn't have come back if I did. One of the issues with my Aspergers is that I have a hard time reading people, especially reading how I come across. So, I appreciate the correction.

I always wonder if I should say things, but generally I assume if someone puts effort into their comments (and you do from what I see), I figure they would like to be more persuasive or clear in communicating, so sometimes I will mention stuff.

I bite my fingers most of the time though...so if it seems I do it a lot, think of how bad it could be.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

It is good to have varied opinions and ideas.  I would be gone quite quickly if we lost that.  And .I like to hear about people's lives and how they make theory into action, etc.  Making it personal, like it is a debate we are counting points on or that everything is going to be a judgment of righteousness, how nice one is, that it is all about the person and not the points....I think that is where it gets problematic.  Thick skin probably helps or finding someone off board to rant to so one can then post a mild response (my solution).

Yep. It took a long time to get past my almost pathological need to be liked. In all honesty, what I find most interesting here is reading the posts from people who are much more dogmatic than I ever was, on both sides. I can't quite relate to it, and it fascinates me. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I always wonder if I should say things, but generally I assume if someone puts effort into their comments (and you do from what I see), I figure they would like to be more persuasive or clear in communicating, so sometimes I will mention stuff.

I bite my fingers most of the time though...so if it seems I do it a lot, think of how bad it could be.

I am learning to take correction more humbly. Thank you.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, I feel neither judged nor victimized here. I wouldn't have come back if I did. One of the issues with my Aspergers is that I have a hard time reading people, especially reading how I come across. So, I appreciate the correction.

It is complicated enough for me, but I also really like that it is written so I can always go back and say to myself "could I read this differently" as well as seeing others' responses which almost always have some nuance I haven't thought of.  It is like reading a mystery novel.

[kllindley]

29 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Let's say it's the 1920's or the 1930's, and the KKK is running around terrorizing people.... but you are not going to "blame" anyone, because "blame is part of shame", and is not empowering...  so there is this particular belief system, and particular group of people who are causing harm, but no one will "blame" them for anything, and the problem gets solved... how?

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is complicated enough for me, but I also really like that it is written so I can always go back and say to myself "could I read this differently" as well as seeing others' responses which almost always have some nuance I haven't thought of.  It is like reading a mystery novel.

Sometimes I am surprised at how things I've said are taken, but usually I can re-read them and see where I went wrong. But I learn something from almost every poster here. And that's a good thing.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

Great video.  Glad I broke my rule and watched it.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Dan Peterson does it a lot in my view.  I am curious if it bugs you the same way or because you know him better, it hits you differently. (Serious question as I am curious, I am trying to figure out why sometimes people can have me on the floor busting a gut and other times they get me rolling my eyes and "enough already!!!").

Fair question.

I suppose for me, the difference is that Dan is lampooning what is painfully obvious: that he is subjected to incessant, vitriolic attack from the Church's critics in certain quarters, pretty much all of it petty and devoid of substance (a few minutes spent on the Mormon Discussions board is all it takes to see that).

And it's not just there. In comments to a recent post on Dan's blog, Bill Reel accused him of lying or dishonesty at least a half-dozen or more times in a single comment. It was way over the top and uncalled for, even if one disagrees with Dan on the topic (the various accounts of the First Vision).

By contrast, I rarely, if ever, see anyone making an issue of jkwilliams's having left the Church. He, in fact, is the only one I see mentioning it, at least on this board.

Maybe I unwittingly have blinders on, and it's possible there are things I'm not noticing, but, for the moment, that's my perspective.

And I didn't mean for this to be a  topic of prolonged discussion, just a one-off observation. To his credit, jkwilliams seems for now to have taken it in stride.

Edited to add:

I just went back to Dan's blog post.

It turns out I greatly understated the number of times Bill Reel accused Dan of lying, dishonesty, deceptiveness or some variant thereof. Within a single comment of 10 very short paragraphs, I counted at least 15 times that he did this.

And he didn't stop there. He went on with further rants after Dan denied his accusations. Then, he took the exchange over to his Facebook account and pasted it in there, subjecting Dan to further character attacks from hostile strangers.

Had I been Dan, I would have summarily banned him from commenting on the blog.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fair question.

I suppose for me, the difference is that Dan is lampooning what is painfully obvious: that he is subjected to incessant, vitriolic attack from the Church's critics in certain quarters (a few minutes spent on the Mormon Discussions board is all it takes to see that).

And it's not just there. In comments to a recent post on Dan's blog, Bill Reel accused him of lying or dishonesty at least a half-dozen or more times in a single comment. It was way over the top and uncalled for, even if one disagrees with Dan on the topic (the various accounts of the First Vision).

By contrast, I rarely, if ever, see anyone making an issue of jkwilliams's having left the Church. He, in fact, is the only one I see mentioning it, at least on this board.

Maybe I unwittingly have blinders on, and it's possible there are things I'm not noticing, but, for the moment, that's my perspective.

And I didn't mean for this to be a  topic of prolonged discussion, just a one-off observation. To his credit, jkwilliams seems for now to have taken it in stride.

It’s been a while since I got the full personal attack. Maybe it’s that people realized that I don’t care anymore. I’ve been called everything you can imagine. I’ve had people say I’m the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is and that I’m a sexual predator. I’ve mentioned the death threats and the anonymous threats to my wife.  

I suppose the most recent pleasantness was when someone said I was a cruel and narcissistic missionary because my companion and I fired our cook, who was gouging us for poor quality food that was making us very sick. Apparently that one incident was enough to show that I didn’t care about anyone but myself during the whole two years.

But it really doesn’t bother me anymore. Maybe my joking about being evil arose as a defense against those attacks. Now that the attacks have faded, I should stop reflexively making those jokes. 

[smac97]

22 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Yeah, I am pretty sure that most rational people will not see it as a hit piece. Constructive criticism? Yes. but it also points out a lot of positive about the Mormon Church in the Mormon people in terms of improving relationships with LGBT

From this review of the film:

Quote

The deaths of celebrities such as Robin Williams, Kate Spade, and Anthony Bourdain have raised questions about the surge in suicides in the United States. Why is it happening? What compels people to take their own lives? What can be done to help them?

In Utah, suicides among teenagers and young people have been on the rise for a decade, and according to Don Argott’s documentary “Believer,” the reason for the increase is not a mystery. In 2008 the Mormon Church put its money and influence behind Proposition 8, California’s successful anti-same-sex-marriage ballot proposal. The church maintained the position that being gay in itself was not a sin but acting on it was. Gay people were advised to be celibate or enter heterosexual marriages. 

The suicide rate among teenagers tripled. “What happened in 2008?” asks a Mormon psychologist interviewed in the film. “It was when the predominant religion within the state of Utah declared war on LGBT people.” And the young people in that category, already vulnerable, felt especially rejected, betrayed, and deemed worthless.

Blaming the Church for suicides.  Suicide rates going up nationwide, but somehow suicides in Utah are attributable to the LDS Church and its members.

Publicly accusing the Church of "declar[ing] war on LGBT people."

This is "not ... a hit piece?"

This is "constructive criticism?"

-Smac

Edited June 21, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From this review of the film:

Blaming the Church for suicides.

Publicly accusing the Church of "declar[ing] war on LGBT people."

This is "not ... a hit piece?"

This is "constructive criticism?"

-Smac

I don’t think you can accurately judge a film by one review from someone who is clearly hostile to the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s been a while since I got the full personal attack. Maybe it’s that people realized that I don’t care anymore. I’ve been called everything you can imagine. I’ve had people say I’m the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is and that I’m a sexual predator. I’ve mentioned the death threats and the anonymous threats to my wife.  

I suppose the most recent pleasantness was when someone said I was a cruel and narcissistic missionary because my companion and I fired our cook, who was gouging us for poor quality food that was making us very sick. Apparently that one incident was enough to show that I didn’t care about anyone but myself during the whole two years.

But it really doesn’t bother me anymore. Maybe my joking about being evil arose as a defense against those attacks. Now that the attacks have faded, I should stop reflexively making those jokes. 

This sounds pretty horrible.

It goes without saying that there is a great deal in your personal history with which I am not acquainted. I'm sorry for the attacks that have beset you.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think you can accurately judge a film by one review from someone who is clearly hostile to the church. 

I can go along with that.  But the hostility to the Church by the reviewer seems to be reinforced by the film, not belied by it.

The reviewer dislikes the Church, and appears to think that the film vindicates that dislike.  So the influence of the film appears to be . . . adverse to the Church.

We'll see, I suppose.  It'll be interesting to how many viewers come away with a perspective about the Church that is better, rather than worse.  Frankly, it looks like we'll be getting something like the reverse of that.

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This sounds pretty horrible.

It goes without saying that there is a great deal in your personal history with which I am not acquainted. I'm sorry for the attacks that have beset you.

It’s in the past. I certainly went through an angry stage, so I’m not exactly innocent. It’s been so long since I had strong feelings about the church that I can’t relate to the prior emotion or to the hatred it engendered. I’m glad it’s gone. I’m ashamed of some things I said and did, and hopefully I’ve done better. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I can go along with that.  But the hostility to the Church by the reviewer seems to be reinforced by the film, not belied by it.

The reviewer dislikes the Church, and appears to think that the film vindicates that dislike.  So the influence of the film appears to be . . . adverse to the Church.

We'll see, I suppose.  It'll be interesting to how many viewers come away with a perspective about the Church that is better, rather than worse.  Frankly, it looks like we'll be getting something like the reverse of that.

-Smac

I have no idea. What I have found interesting is that some people think my book is hostile to the church, while others have found it faith-promoting. Perhaps that reviewer simply saw it through his own biases. I guess the only way to know is to see the film. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I have no idea. What I have found interesting is that some people think my book is hostile to the church, while others have found it faith-promoting. Perhaps that reviewer simply saw it through his own biases. I guess the only way to know is to see the film. 

I'm not that good at reading books in the last few years. I read yours completely not too long ago, I didn't see anything hostile. It was a great read. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I'm not that good at reading books in the last few years. I read yours completely not too long ago, I didn't see anything hostile. It was a great read. 

Thanks. I’ve only had the one negative response, which makes me happy. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the burden of proof is on those who are accusing the Church of causing widespread suicides among youth. 

Is there no burden of proof required from the person making accusations against Dan Reynolds?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Hopefully we will get more studies that are more specific.

What concerns me greatly with the push of many to make leaving the church a very visible option for gay members, especially teens, is that one study demonstrated increased suicide risk for those gay who left their childhood faith, even though there was also a negative correlation in their self esteem, etc.  Things were worse, not better after leaving apparently from the stats generally speaking.

We definitely need to improve how we treat those who are different in our church so the choice to stay with their faith is seen.  In the long run it may be better to aggressively work on how language is used and support given within the Church rather than make it so all or nothing (you will not be fulfilled if you stay in the Church, but have a life long struggle suppressing part of who you are, etc.).

We have no way of knowing, but it is possible that many of the suicides by Mormon LGBT came about because they were told and believed they had to choose one or the other, faith or fulfillment and being required to live the one without the other became seen as impossible.  It is also possible that they were in their hearts already exmormon even if not out in the open about it and therefore had lost whatever protection it appears feeling one belongs to a religious community gives.

We need to improve the positive and while recognizing the negative, not wallow in it or use it as a weapon when the ones it hurts are the ones in the middle, not those aimed at.  And I mean this from all sides as I see many believers who think they are doing right by weaponizing issues to make gays look bad.

Unfortunately,  the church has made it a choose one or the other issue.  I certainly would be more involved in at least attending church occasionally.  But when I have in the past, disparaging remarks similar to some posted on this very thread were still very much present.  That combined with the October policy clearly makes it difficult for involvement in the church unless you are willing to strictly live by their rules.  I have no complaint in them dealing with gays in that way.  It is their church and they must run it the way they see fit.  But the line in the sand is pretty sharp.  

Every gay Mormon knows where that line is. It is not like those outside the church are revealing any secret to them.  What I believe is important, and a message they certainly are not going to get from the church, is that you can have both a fulfilling and spiritual life outside of the church.  Whatever the choice they make, to stay or go, is completely their choice.  I certainly honor and support them no matter what that choice is.  But they do deserve to be fully informed on all options.  I believe it is those who think they have no options that are the ones we need to worry about.