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

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

On 7/1/2018 at 11:11 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I think there are several reasons good and sound why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the policies that any member who enters into a gay marriage is considered to be in apostasy and that any children reared in gay households must wait until age eighteen to be baptised and must affirm their commitment to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ with respect to chastity and marriage.  [...]

bold mine

When the church labels anyone an apostate, that is a red flag to me that it isn't using Christ's love as a goal, but ostracising people out of an organization.

Well, an apostate is one who commits apostasy. And apostasy takes place whenever an individual (or possibly a group) turns away from the principles of the gospel. 

If you know of a different word to describe somebody who once followed the principles of the gospel but now refuses to do so, then please share. I suppose we could call them Non Observant Mormons or something like that. But let's be clear, the purpose of the label isn't to "ostraci[ze] people out of an organization."

The purpose of the word is to simply describe a certain state of affairs - a state which exists because of the choices made by the one who has chosen to abandon the principles of the gospel. 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, an apostate is one who commits apostasy. And apostasy takes place whenever an individual (or possibly a group) turns away from the principles of the gospel. 

If you know of a different word to describe somebody who once followed the principles of the gospel but now refuses to do so, then please share. I suppose we could call them Non Observant Mormons or something like that. But let's be clear, the purpose of the label isn't to "ostraci[ze] people out of an organization."

The purpose of the word is to simply describe a certain state of affairs - a state which exists because of the choices made by the one who has chosen to abandon the principles of the gospel. 

 

If this is the church's definition of what an apostate is, then why doesn't the church label someone who is living with a partner without being married an apostate.  Or for that matter, anyone who is not living the commandments and has left the church or no longer attends? How about someone who refuses to give up drinking or smoking?  

Apostate is a very charged word.  And words have meaning.  The church can call anyone it wants an apostate.  But let's not fool ourselves.  To someone who is gay it definitely feels like the church is indeed ostracizing gay married couples out of an organization.  Do you honestly believe that a gay married couple would feel welcome to attend church while being called apostates?  

Would. you feel welcome going to a church labeled as an apostate?  Because the message to me is quite clear.  I am not welcome.  Nor do I think there is a place for me and my partner in the church.  And yes, I think that is definitely the message the church wanted to send.   

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

If this is the church's definition of what an apostate is, then why doesn't the church label someone who is living with a partner without being married an apostate.  Or for that matter, anyone who is not living the commandments and has left the church or no longer attends? How about someone who refuses to give up drinking or smoking?  

Apostate is a very charged word.  And words have meaning.  The church can call anyone it wants an apostate.  But let's not fool ourselves.  To someone who is gay it definitely feels like the church is indeed ostracizing gay married couples out of an organization.  Do you honestly believe that a gay married couple would feel welcome to attend church while being called apostates?  

Would. you feel welcome going to a church labeled as an apostate?  Because the message to me is quite clear.  I am not welcome.  Nor do I think there is a place for me and my partner in the church.  And yes, I think that is definitely the message the church wanted to send.   

Exactly. It's interesting that the church's new video says:

Quote

"There's an old sectarian notion that suicide is a sin and that someone who commits suicide is banished to hell forever. That is totally false," Elder Renlund said. "I believe the vast majority of cases will find that these individuals have lived heroic lives and that that suicide will not be a defining characteristic of their eternities."

But homosexuality is, apparently, a defining characteristic of a person's eternities. Someone who commits suicide is not an apostate, but someone who has a stable, legal, and loving homosexual relationship is. 

I can't imagine how a gay member of the church would feel. It took me years to overcome the guilt and shame of knowing I am bisexual, but I always knew I could simply choose to be with my wife, to whom I am attracted, and raise a happy and loving family. It would be a different story were that option not open to me. I'm an apostate because I chose to accept what I see as overwhelming evidence the church isn't what it claims to be. But I don't understand labeling someone an apostate because of a lifestyle choice, especially one based on their fundamental needs and desires. 

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine

When the church labels anyone an apostate, that is a red flag to me that it isn't using Christ's love as a goal, but ostracising people out of an organization.

Christ loves even apostates, and we should, too.  Most of us do well following His example in that regard (assuming we even know they've been subject to Church discipline, and most of us don't, unless they, perhaps for nefarious reasons, choose to publicize it), though it behooves all of us regularly to reflect on how well we're doing that (along with the other things He commands us to do), and to make course corrections when necessary.  And, of course, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and even if we don't happen to be guilty of some grave sin, we're still reliant upon "the merits, and mercy, and grace" of He who is Mighty to Save (2 Nephi 2:8): As Jim's wife, Joanne, tells him in the Church production The Prodigal Son (1992), "None of us can make it halfway through this life, or into the next, without the Savior."

I've had friends and family members who have been subject to Church discipline who, now, are some of the staunchest, most stalwart, most faithful people I know: That state of affairs would not have been possible if they had not been through the purification of the Refiner's Fire that is Church discipline.  Whether Church discipline (including excommunication) is the last step out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or is the first step back into the Church of Jesus Christ is entirely up to the person who is subject to it.

[california boy]

On 7/2/2018 at 6:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Again, you're probably right that I can do a better job of seeking to understand before seeking to be understood.  Thank you for the reminder.  I'll work on it.

It speaks well of you that you encourage your children's continued involvement in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, notwithstanding your own disagreement with some of the Church's policies and teachings.  Good for you.

Perhaps we will disagree about who is drawing any particular line ("the Church" versus "the Savior"), but the same Lord who taught, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13:34) also taught, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 16:24), and "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Mark 16:25), and "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Mark 10:37).

I don't know that the Church of Jesus Christ "took the position that a person's constitutional right ... can be put up for a popular vote" so much as it encouraged its members and others of like mind (from it's perspective, not from your perspective or from the perspective of someone who does not believe that, for members of the Church of Jesus Christ, gay marriage amounts to apostasy, that opposite-sex marriage is ordained of God, and that sex outside of marriage is wrong) to follow the counsel  contained in Mosiah 29:26-27:

Kenngo, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to better understand how I actually feel about the church and how it treats me as a gay man.  The church has sent some pretty strong signals that I am not welcome.  And that is ok.  It is not my church.  Perhaps some day in the distant future, the church will think of me more as someone who is not willing to follow the policies of the church, but has a sincere desire to draw closer to the Savior.  Church policies have not stopped me from doing that.  It has just stopped me from being a part of the church to help me in that process.

On 7/2/2018 at 6:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

And the Supreme Court of California, august body though it may be, does not "establish" anyone's constitutional rights. 

I'm not sure you're being entirely fair here: the question of the status of marriage as a civil right wasn't definitively settled until the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _____ (2015) so decided about two years ago.  

Now this belief of yours I am going to directly challenge.  Certainly with your background in the law you are completely aware that the Supreme Court of California does indeed rule on the constitutional rights under the State Constitution.  In fact that is exactly why they exist.  They ruled that the California State Constitution did indeed require that gay couples have a civil right under the state constitution to have a legal marriage just like every other citizen of the state.  Obergefell v. Hodges, applied to the Federal Constitution rights.

 

On 7/2/2018 at 6:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I know that you don't share this view, but there is a certain strain of thought that holds that people have a "right" to the "free exercise" of religion: They're "free" to "exercise" their religion as they wish ... within the walls of their holy place on their holy day.  But, somehow, I doubt that the Framers' conception of the Free Exercise clause was quite so narrow.  And it's not as though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was and is alone in its opposition to gay marriage.  

Like I previously stated, I do not dispute the constitutional right of the church to participate in the election process.  But that still doesn't change the fact that the church directly campaigned to take away someone's civil rights in the State of California.  I can't square that with the teachings of the Savior when He clearly taught that government laws should be left to the government and. religious laws should be left to God.  

On 7/2/2018 at 6:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Quite so.

That's your decision ... and theirs.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I wish you all well in your continuing faith journey.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Consider these verses from John 6:

And how did many of his listeners respond?

Yes, I understand that you believe there is a difference.  However (and I understand that you will disagree with this, and why), President Russell M. Nelson isn't simply a prophet to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor are the Twelve Apostles and Counselors in the First Presidency Apostles to solely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: They have a ponderous, weighty, heavy responsibility to stand as witnesses of Christ and to declare truth to the whole world.  

Kenngo, I will restate again,   Yes the church has every right to teach whatever it wants about it's organization.  And yes, they have every right to kick members out that choose to enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex.  And yes, that is a difficult principle for some to follow.  But that principle of the gospel has nothing to do with imposing the church beliefs on those that are not members of their organization.  Forcing others to comply by rule of state law with the gospel is not the plan that we signed up for when we came to earth.  I think that was the other guy's plan.

 

On 7/2/2018 at 6:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I think there are several reasons good and sound why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the policies that any member who enters into a gay marriage is considered to be in apostasy and that any children reared in gay households must wait until age eighteen to be baptised and must affirm their commitment to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ with respect to chastity and marriage.  They are too complicated to get into here, but suffice it to say that they forestall other potential attacks, possibly attacks that would be waged in a court of law, on the Church of Jesus Christ and on its teachings.

I'll respond to the rest of your post at another time.  Thanks.  I know we are apt to disagree, but, honestly, I bear you no ill will.  Indeed, I wish you well.  

The church doesn't need several good reasons to implement policy.  And of course I have heard this point of view before.  I obviously do not agree that what you consider good reasons are nothing more than sending a very clear message that gay couples and their children are not welcome in the church.  As a gay man, the message is very clear to me.  I have never heard any clarification of that message to indicate that gay couples and their children are indeed welcome and would be received with open arms.  So I take the church at their word.  No I do not feel like the church wants me and my parter to be a part of it's organization.  So I stay away and find a better path towards the Savior.  I am saddened that I can not be a part of the Mormon Church, but that has little affect on my spirituality.

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But I don't understand labeling someone an apostate because of a lifestyle choice, especially one based on their fundamental needs and desires. 

Suppose I have a "revelation" reinstituting concubinage.  Suppose, although in reality, I am gravely mistaken, I am, nonetheless, entirely sincere in my belief that this revelation is genuine.  My revelation has imparted at least a patina of religious legitimacy to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would, consider to be a violation of the law of chastity.

Suppose I tell someone(s), "Look, this 'traditional marriage' thing, to which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entirely too tightly wedded (no pun intended ) isn't exactly working out all that well for me (thus necessitating my revelation).  I don't want to disrupt your life for longer than nine months, but if I don't do something, my line is going to die out.  I'll pay you top-dollar, and even if you find the prospect of engaging in the intimacy that might be necessary for me to bring about its continuance positively vile and repugnant, there are ways around that, too!  All I want to do is borrow your womb for nine months.  We'll simply have you artificially inseminated!  Voila! problem solved!"

Not a violation of the law of chastity?

Not apostasy?

And if it is a violation of the law of chastity, and if it is apostasy, aren't my arguments to the contrary simply special pleading (notwithstanding my sincerity, my at-least-a-little-bit-purer motives, and so on)?

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Suppose I have a "revelation" reinstituting concubinage.  Suppose, although in reality, I am gravely mistaken, I am, nonetheless, entirely sincere in my belief that this revelation is genuine.  My revelation has imparted at least a patina of religious legitimacy to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would, consider to be a violation of the law of chastity.

Suppose I tell someone(s), "Look, this 'traditional marriage' thing, to which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entirely too tightly wedded (no pun intended ) isn't exactly working out all that well for me (thus necessitating my revelation).  I don't want to disrupt your life for longer than nine months, but if I don't do something, my line is going to die out.  I'll pay you top-dollar, and even if you find the prospect of engaging in the intimacy that might be necessary for me to bring about its continuance positively vile and repugnant, there are ways around that, too!  All I want to do is borrow your womb for nine months.  We'll simply have you artificially inseminated!  Voila! problem solved!"

Not a violation of the law of chastity?

Not apostasy?

And if it is a violation of the law of chastity, and if it is apostasy, aren't my arguments to the contrary simply special pleading (notwithstanding my sincerity, my at-least-a-little-bit-purer motives, and so on)?

 

I don't think gay members have claimed revelation. Be that as it may, is a member who fathers a child via artificial insemination an apostate? Not that I've heard of. I don't really know the church's stand on artificial insemination, so I wouldn't presume to say whether that's considered a violation of the law of chastity. 

Either way, claiming revelation contrary to the revealed doctrines of the church is pretty much apostasy. 

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. It's interesting that the church's new video says:

But homosexuality is, apparently, a defining characteristic of a person's eternities. Someone who commits suicide is not an apostate, but someone who has a stable, legal, and loving homosexual relationship is. 

I can't imagine how a gay member of the church would feel. It took me years to overcome the guilt and shame of knowing I am bisexual, but I always knew I could simply choose to be with my wife, to whom I am attracted, and raise a happy and loving family. It would be a different story were that option not open to me. I'm an apostate because I chose to accept what I see as overwhelming evidence the church isn't what it claims to be. But I don't understand labeling someone an apostate because of a lifestyle choice, especially one based on their fundamental needs and desires. 

For you it was the overwhelming evidence the church isn't want it claims to be.  For me, it was the overwhelming realization that church leaders do not speak for God when they promise that if I only marry a woman, then they promised me in the name of God that I would loose the attraction to other men and no longer be gay.  Claims of divine understanding of the will of God ended up just not being true and only caused sadness and false hope.  While those claims of "knowing the will of God" on this issue have long been abandoned by church leaders, my life still bears the scars of those claims.  

I will always be in love with my partner.  He is the most important person in my life.  He will always be a part of that life.  He enriches my life and makes me a better person.  He teaches me what the very essence of love is. If the church feels the need to label me an apostate and sever my personal relationship from their organization for that love, then that is their choice.  I am not going to stop loving him simply because of a label the church puts on me.  Actually I can not think of a name the church could call me that would lead me to separate my life from him.  Is there a worse word than apostate that the church could use to abandon my love?  No, I don't think so.  But what I do know is that it wouldn't make one bit of difference.  I will still always love him.  We have been together for the past 10 years.  I am not going anywhere.

[Kenngo1969]

California Boy,

As I promised, I'm going to finish responding to your previous post before responding to anything subsequent to that, but I finally got some days off that I don't have to devote to meetings  (imagine that! ), and o f course, tomorrow is the Fourth.   (Not to mention they've tightened up our Internet access policy at work, even though they can't resist boring me crapless otherwise for all or part of many days ... So, it might be awhile ... but I'm not ignoring you.  

 

[kllindley]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think gay members have claimed revelation. Be that as it may, is a member who fathers a child via artificial insemination an apostate? Not that I've heard of. I don't really know the church's stand on artificial insemination, so I wouldn't presume to say whether that's considered a violation of the law of chastity. 

Either way, claiming revelation contrary to the revealed doctrines of the church is pretty much apostasy. 

I've heard a lot of LGBT individuals say that they believe God has communicated to them that He approves of their choice to enter same-sex marriage. I'm surprised you haven't seen that. 

But yes, I agree with you that claiming revelation contrary to revealed doctrine is apostasy. It doesn't conflict with my beliefs to think that God may very well lead a person out of the Church, at least for a time. But even when/if it is His doing, it is still apostasy. 

I do wish there was a way we could separate that usage of aspostasy/apostate. We understandably talk about the harm caused in early Church history by "bitter apostates." But we also talk more compassionately about those in he primitive Church who were doing their best to preserve the gospel, but nevertheless fell into apostasy.  That second usage seems much closer to the situation of people who choose to enter same-sex marriages. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I've heard a lot of LGBT individuals say that they believe God has communicated to them that He approves of their choice to enter same-sex marriage. I'm surprised you haven't seen that. 

But yes, I agree with you that claiming revelation contrary to revealed doctrine is apostasy. It doesn't conflict with my beliefs to think that God may very well lead a person out of the Church, at least for a time. But even when/if it is His doing, it is still apostasy. 

I do wish there was a way we could separate that usage of aspostasy/apostate. We understandably talk about the harm caused in early Church history by "bitter apostates." But we also talk more compassionately about those in he primitive Church who were doing their best to preserve the gospel, but nevertheless fell into apostasy.  That second usage seems much closer to the situation of people who choose to enter same-sex marriages. 

I guess the difference is between saying "I received personal revelation x that applies only to me" and "I received revelation x for the entire church and world." I know a lot of church members who have been prompted to do something in a particular circumstance that goes against the letter of the law. Are they apostates?

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, an apostate is one who commits apostasy. And apostasy takes place whenever an individual (or possibly a group) turns away from the principles of the gospel. 

If you know of a different word to describe somebody who once followed the principles of the gospel but now refuses to do so, then please share. I suppose we could call them Non Observant Mormons or something like that. But let's be clear, the purpose of the label isn't to "ostraci[ze] people out of an organization."

The purpose of the word is to simply describe a certain state of affairs - a state which exists because of the choices made by the one who has chosen to abandon the principles of the gospel. 

 

Funny thing is, when gays marry they decide to stay monogamous and hopefully devoted to one partner, which is now what is going to get them in trouble. Would the church rather they not do that? I guess so.

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Funny thing is, when gays marry they decide to stay monogamous and hopefully devoted to one partner, which is now what is going to get them in trouble. 

When gays marry they are also signaling to the world that they plan on ignoring the law of chastity as currently understood and taught by the church. 

If you persistently, publicly state that you are not going to follow certain principles of the gospel, then yeah, that is probably going to get you into trouble with the church. 

 

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

When gays marry they are also signaling to the world that they plan on ignoring the law of chastity as currently understood and taught by the church. 

If you persistently, publicly state that you are not going to follow certain principles of the gospel, then yeah, that is probably going to get you into trouble with the church. 

 

Law of Chastity, you have stated that they are ignoring that? Marrying is how you keep the law of chastity, IMO. I guess the church believes it's only between male and female, but what if we look at the spirit of the law, this would be a good thing, would it not?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Law of Chastity, you have stated that they are ignoring that? Marrying is how you keep the law of chastity, IMO. I guess the church believes it's only between male and female, but what if we look at the spirit of the law, this would be a good thing, would it not?

Notwithstanding my reservations regarding gay marriage, if two gay or lesbian individuals choose to avail themselves of man's law and to wed, I hope they remain happy and committed for as long as their union lasts: more power to them.

The world may have whatever definition it chooses of marriage, but whatever definition it adopts does not change God's laws, and a prohibition on sex outside of marriage is only part of the Law of Chastity: Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and sex outside of marriage is a violation of the Law of Chastity.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Funny thing is, when gays marry they decide to stay monogamous and hopefully devoted to one partner ...

I think you may not entirely be across the data on this one ...

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you may not entirely be across the data on this one ...

So, only people who will be faithful should get married? What are you saying?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

So, only people who will be faithful should get married? What are you saying?

Simple: I am pointing out demonstrable errors in Tacenda's assumption: 'When gays marry they decide to stay monogamous and hopefully devoted to one partner'.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Simple: I am pointing out demonstrable errors in Tacenda's assumption: 'When gays marry they decide to stay monogamous and hopefully devoted to one partner'.

Hence the word “hopefully.”

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hence the word “hopefully.”

I'm fine with Tacenda harbouring that hope. That doesn't mean that we can't share information to demonstrate that the hope isn't strongly supported by real data ... or necessarily shared by many of those she's projecting her hope onto.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm fine with Tacenda harbouring that hope. That doesn't mean that we can't share information to demonstrate that the hope isn't strongly supported by real data ... or necessarily shared by many of those she's projecting her hope onto.

And this is relevant why?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

And this is relevant why?

I didn't think you were a fan of 'whitewashed' narratives of any sort. Was I wrong?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I didn't think you were a fan of 'whitewashed' narratives of any sort. Was I wrong?

Who is whitewashing? I don’t really care how gay people live their marriages. Why do you?

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Who is whitewashing?

I won't say that Tacenda is because no doubt she is just repeating what she's heard and been told. But as the Slate article makes clear:

Quote

A long Gawker story last week explored this problem in greater detail. In the fight for marriage equality, the gay rights movement has put forth couples that look like straight ones, together forever, loyal, sharing assets. But what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm:

The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing.

In writing about the subject, gay people emphasize the aspects of their relationships that sound most wholesome and straight-like, Steven Thrasher writes. They neglect to mention that, say, in Thrasher’s case, he met his partner for sex only once, and they ended up falling in love. The larger point being that gay couples are very different when it comes to sex, even if this is not the convenient moment to discuss that. And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships.

 

Quote

I don’t really care how gay people live their marriages. Why do you?

I don't. I do care about truth, and when I see people repeating inaccurate information as part of a discussion, I'm inclined to gently correct it.

Why do you find the truth of this matter so personally irritating? If you don't like facts, no one is forcing you to read or respond to them.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I won't say that Tacenda is because no doubt she is just quoting what she's heard and been told. But as the Slate article makes clear:

 

I don't. I do care about truth, and when I see people repeating inaccurate information as part of a discussion, I'm inclined to gently correct it.

Why do you find the truth of this matter so personally irritating? If you don't like facts, no one is forcing you to read or respond to them.

She made a hopeful statement, and you slammed her because you think she’s ignorant of the facts, perhaps deliberately so. Yeah, that’s annoying.