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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Traditionally that word means someone who was never Mormon. An anti-Mormon who used to be a church member is usually called an apostate. Like me. 

I strongly disagree that it only means traditionally nonmembers. In all contexts I have see it used it means someone intent on destroying the Church. I have seen it applied to people still official members even, one who was teaching an anti-Mormon class at a local Baptist Church  can’t remember if they excommunicated him or not because of the family circumstances  (wife had just died and left him with young kids, church members were part of the kids’ support system and leaders didn’t want them to suffer).

For a well known example, Stephen Robinon’s "Korihor is back" commentary about Dan Vogel’s book, that ends with he prefers his anti-Mormons straight up. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I strongly disagree that it only means traditionally nonmembers. In all contexts I have see it used it means someone intent on destroying the Church. I have seen it applied to people still members. 

For a well known example, Stephen Robonson’s Korihor is back connentary about Dan Vogel’s book, that ends with he prefers his anti-Mormons straight up. 

Ah, so that’s the context of that quote Scott likes so much. I can’t fathom calling Dan Vogel an example of an anti-Mormon. 

i was speaking from my experience in that I’ve generally heard anti-Mormon applied to never-Mormons. But I stand corrected. 

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

He lost me there, too.  He also lost me when he characterized the Church's position as "'shaming' ... gay and lesbian kids," when he publicly declared that "the church's 'platitudes [about there being a place in the Church for gay and lesbian kids] are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex," and when he publicly accused the Church of "going to war on the LGBT community" and of driving children to suicide.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to work my way back.  

I think he's something of a head-in-the-clouds kind of a guy.  A shoot-ready-aim kind of person.  He appears to privilege his emotions over the Scriptures and the General Authorities.  I suspect he hasn't really given the Church's position and doctrines much thought or effort to understand (as evidenced, in part, by his characterizing the Church's teaching as "being gay is a sin").  He has friends who are gay, his friends are offended/upset that the Church teaches that homosexual conduct and same-sex marriage are wrong, ergo he left straddling a divide between his friends and his community of faith.  Q.E.D.

But for all that, he seems to genuinely want to build bridges.  I contrast him with folks like Jeremy Runnells, and Kate Kelly, and a few others, whose rhetoric and conduct toward the Church never seemed to be genuine and conciliatory and accommodating, but instead came across and accusatory and usurpatory and shut-up-and-do-what-I-say-esque.  He seems to be working mostly to be an ambassador for gay folks to the Mormons, but I think he is also attempting, to some extent, to be an ambassador for the Mormons to gay folks.  I think I detect that in his interviews.  And if that's the case, then good for him.

In the end, notwithstanding his occasional misstep/mischaracterization, I think he is generally operating in good faith.  I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really want to believe that. His response to my friend whose video he used does not sit well with me. And his recent Tweets are not cool. 

I never want to hear the phrase “struggling with same sex attraction” ever again please. it’s literally killing our youth. in the name of Jesus Christ amen

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s kind of like when I was told I had made a conscious decision to follow Satan. I wasn’t offended, but I was certainly aware that “following Satan” has very negative connotations. Calling someone an apostate is not somewhere between benign and negative. It’s a loaded term. 

Yeah, not cool. Sorry you had to go through that. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, kllindley said:

Yeah, not cool. Sorry you had to go through that. 

Like I said, I wasn’t offended. But let’s be honest that “apostate” is not merely a benign term reflecting one’s ecclesiastical standing. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Ah, so that’s the context of that quote Scott likes so much. I can’t fathom calling Dan Vogel an example of an anti-Mormon. 

i was speaking from my experience in that I’ve generally heard anti-Mormon applied to never-Mormons. But I stand corrected. 

Sandra and Gerald Tanner were Mormons in their youth.  Ed Decker...

It is a badge of honor for many anti-Mormons to list their church heritage (I am a fifth generation Mormon) from what I have seen.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Like I said, I wasn’t offended. But let’s be honest that “apostate” is not merely a benign term reflecting one’s ecclesiastical standing. 

Please don't suggest I'm being dishonest to question how loaded the word actually is and who is loading it.

 

When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Sandra and Gerald Tanner were Mormons in their youth.  Ed Decker...

It is a badge of honor for many anti-Mormons to list their church heritage (I am a fifth generation Mormon) from what I have seen.

Have I mentioned I’m a seventh-generation Mormon? Either way, I acknowledge I was wrong. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, kllindley said:

Please don't suggest I'm being dishonest to question how loaded the word actually is and who is loading it.

 

When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

I’m not suggesting you’re being dishonest. I can see it came across that way, and I retract that statement. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Have I mentioned I’m a seventh-generation Mormon? Either way, I acknowledge I was wrong. 

Not arguing, just providing info.  

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not suggesting you’re being dishonest. I can see it came across that way, and I retract that statement. 

Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. Again, I acknowledge that the term is emotionally loaded, especially when used as a noun. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not arguing, just providing info.  

We Williamses were apostates before apostasy was cool. 😊

[Calm]

I tend to follow these definitions:

Quote

Type I narratives characterize the exit process as defection. According to Bromley, "the defector role may be defined as one in which an organizational participant negotiates exit primarily with organizational authorities, who grant permission for role relinquishment, control the exit process, and facilitate role transition. The jointly constructed narrative assigns primary moral responsibility for role performance problems to the departing member and interprets organizational permission as commitment to extraordinary moral standards and preservation of public trust." [7] The ultimate responsibility for leaving the organization is attributed solely to the exiting member. The latter accepts that he or she was simply not able to conform to the standards required by the organization. The exiting member had tried to merge into the organization, but failed because of personal difficulties. The organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties. It is expected that the former member expresses a certain amount of regret for not having been able to remain in an organization he or she still regards as benevolent and of a high moral standard.

Type II narratives—ordinary leave-taking—are both the most common and the least often discussed. In fact, participants exit a wide variety of organizations every day, and little is heard about the actual exit processes unless they are contested in some way. Non-contested exit processes involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization he or she intends to leave, and the environment or society at large. In fact, contemporary society offers a readily available narrative of how a person, in what has become the normal process of moving from one social "home" to another in different fields, simply loses interest, loyalty, and commitment to an old experience and proceeds to a new one. In this sense, the usual narrative implies that the ordinary leave-taker holds no strong feelings concerning the past experience. Since loyalty towards it has diminished, and the organization was ultimately exited, the leave-taker’s narrative will normally include some comments on the organization’s more negative features or shortcomings. The ordinary leave-taker, however, may also recognize that there was something positive in the experience. In fact, ordinary leave-taking is not normally seen as requiring any particular justification, and there will be no deep probing into the causes and responsibilities behind the exit process. 

Type III narratives define the role of the apostate. In this case, the ex-member dramatically reverses his or her loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he or she has left. "The narrative," in Bromley’s terms, "is one which documents the quintessentially evil essence of the apostate’s former organization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experience of capture and ultimate escape/rescue."[8] The former organization could easily label the apostate a traitor. However, the apostate—particularly after having joined an oppositional coalition fighting the organization—often claims that he or she was a "victim" or a "prisoner" who did not join voluntarily. This, of course, implies that the organization itself was the embodiment of an extraordinary evil. Having been socialized into an oppositional coalition, the apostate finds a number of theoretical tools (including powerful brainwashing metaphors) ready for use, which help to explain precisely why the organization is evil and able to deprive its members of their free will.

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Acropolis.htm

Defector still has negative connotations for most people, but I think more or less applies to those who enter into SSM knowing of the contradiction with church teachings and making a conscious choice between the two.

I wish "leavetakers" was a more popular term, at this point I use exmormon instead, but it provides no info beyond exiting the faith and is problematic for those still on the roles.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I really want to believe that. His response to my friend whose video he used does not sit well with me. And his recent Tweets are not cool. 

I never want to hear the phrase “struggling with same sex attraction” ever again please. it’s literally killing our youth. in the name of Jesus Christ amen

Yeesh.  The benefit of the doubt is circling the drain.

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Traditionally that word means someone who was never Mormon. An anti-Mormon who used to be a church member is usually called an apostate. Like me. 

That hasn't been my understanding at all. The word simply seems to refer to people who actively opposed the church, it's practices and or members.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Ah, so that’s the context of that quote Scott likes so much. I can’t fathom calling Dan Vogel an example of an anti-Mormon. 

It was in a review of Signature Books’s “New Approaches to the Book of Mormon.” The memorable title of the review was “Korihor’s Back, and This Time He’s Got a Printing Press.”

Edited July 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeesh.  The benefit of the doubt is circling the drain.

-Smac

It must be tough when you feel like you have to choose between your faith and your humanity. 

[Kenngo1969]

Is the phrase "struggling with depression [or with some other psychiatric diagnosis]" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling with lack of self-esteem" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling with body-image issues" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling with bullying" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling to fit in" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling with relationship issues" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling with family dysfunction" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling with alcohol or drug abuse" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling to find meaning and purpose in life" killing our youth?

Is the phrase "struggling over the loss of a close family member or friend" killing our youth?

Whatever happened to, "The first step in recovery is for one to acknowledge he has a problem"?  But now, according to Dan Reynolds, anyone in any of the foregoing categories is better off simply pretending the problem doesn't exist and hoping that pretending will make it go away?

OK, I acknowledge that the path our gay and lesbian Latter-day Saint brothers and sisters must walk to remain faithful in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, in some ways, a uniquely difficult path.  (And if somebody says, "Hey, I don't want the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide my paradigm: I think there are other successful ways to navigate the intricacies and complexities of my relationship with God," more power to him or her.  I hope that person finds happiness and fulfillment wherever that path leads.)

On the other hand, even current mental health thinking (hardly friendly to organized religion in some respects, and in some ways, especially not sympathetic to conceptions of chastity and marriage as promulgated in and by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) acknowledges that one's sexual orientation isn't a problem ... unless the person himself or herself is troubled by it.

So what if the Latter-day Saint himself or herself is the one who says, "I'm struggling with my sexual identity"?  The only viable answer is, "Join the resistance, and use virtually any means necessary to browbeat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into changing its doctrines on chastity and marriage"?  Even California Boy, whose certainly had his share of negative experiences relating to the response to his sexual orientation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recognizes that, while the Church might not be for everyone, there are at least some people who can find happiness and fulfillment while still remaining faithful members.

California Boy has answered that question one way; Tom Christofferson has answered it another way (and more power to each of them); but to Dan Reynolds, it would seem, only California Boy is right, only Tom Christofferson is wrong, and the only way to resolve the issue is for the Church of Jesus Christ, fundamentally and at its core, to capitulate regarding core doctrines.

Is that it?  

 

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It must be tough when you feel like you have to choose between your faith and your humanity. 

It can be, I suppose (see my post immediately preceding this one) but here's the thing: Are we essentially human beings who have been sent to earth to have occasional spiritual experiences, or are we essentially spiritual beings (gods and goddesses in embryo!  ) who have been sent here to have a mortal experience?

Edited July 5, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

It can be, I suppose (see my post immediately preceding yours) but here's the thing: Are we essentially human beings who have been sent to earth to have occasional spiritual experiences, or are we essentially spiritual beings (gods and goddesses in embryo!  ) who have been sent here to have a mortal experience?

I know the church’s answer to that, but I am glad I don’t see sexual orientation as a problem to be struggled with. 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know the church’s answer to that, but I am glad I don’t see sexual orientation as a problem to be struggled with. 

I also don't love the "struggle" terminology. But "same-sex attraction" is simply descriptive. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I also don't love the "struggle" terminology. But "same-sex attraction" is simply descriptive. 

It seems more like an attempt to deny that homosexuality is part of one’s nature. 

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems more like an attempt to deny that homosexuality is part of one’s nature. 

That is a common claim. Though saying that seems like an attempt to dismiss the lived experience of people who don't embrace the pseudoscience of the new LGBT religion. 

Does that sort of assumption about the intentions of anyone who disagrees with me seem productive or helpful?

Edited July 5, 2018 by kllindley

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It must be tough when you feel like you have to choose between your faith and your humanity. 

Indeed. My sense is that the Lord Himself acknowledged this very real point repeatedly, including each time He said, 'Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me'.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It must be tough when you feel like you have to choose between your faith and your humanity. 

I think much of that toughness would go away if he were accurately characterizing and understanding  the church's doctrinal position.