Dan Reynolds - Prophet

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/4/2018 at 7:36 PM, hope_for_things said:

If you feel God is on your side, I would argue that God doesn’t take sides, loves all and wants us to be more forgiving and inclusive, not divisive.  

God does take sides when it does comes to issues of eternal laws and righteousness.  God never takes the side of the devil.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And yet here we are fellow Mormons with very different opinions on how to treat people.

Which makes it very clear we haven't achieved Zion yet in mortality.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

God does take sides when it does comes to issues of eternal laws and righteousness.  God never takes the side of the devil.

Sounds a lot like the my dad can beat up your dad kind of argument.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which makes it very clear we haven't achieved Zion yet in mortality.

If achieving Zion means we’ll always agree then let’s hope Zion never happens.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 8/4/2018 at 12:19 AM, hope_for_things said:

I personally don't believe in the supernatural ....

 

On 8/5/2018 at 11:36 AM, hope_for_things said:

I would argue that God doesn’t take sides ...

If you personally don't believe in the supernatural, who exactly is this God who doesn't take sides?

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

If you personally don't believe in the supernatural, who exactly is this God who doesn't take sides?

Listen, if people want to claim a deity is on their side so they can feel justified, then it’s just not a game I wish to play.  The gospel as I see it is a set of aspirational principles.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Listen, if people want to claim a deity is on their side so they can feel justified, then it’s just not a game I wish to play.

So when you told us above what God wants despite apparently not actually believing in Him, and when you claimed that what this deity wants is what you want, that wasn't a game and wasn't designed to justify your position? How exactly does that work?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

Apologies for the delay, but as Calm pointed out, I was waiting to hear back and then it was the weekend.  

I'll just say in presenting this information, that I greatly appreciate and admire this individual's courage in sharing his experience in a world that is especially hostile to LGBT individuals of Faith.  

Quote

One thing I admire about my wife is that as she says "I am not going to hide my head in the sand." Yesterday morning, my wife's best friend since childhood messaged me telling me that she and her husband were tearing up watching "Believer." Since the HBO release, I had several friends contacting me wanting to know what I think about it. I had no reference to the film only what the Church Public Affairs representative told me back in February and my conversation with Dan Reynold's brother Robert Reynolds in that month. Since I learned that a portion of my M&G video was used in the film, I've gone through periods of anxiety. People calling me or telling me that the film left them hating the church or hating the film, Dan, his band and the producers. Since I have not seen the film, I felt in the dark. I felt hurt and taken advantage. Robert Reynolds telling me that marriages like mine are bad for the LGBTQ community was the last punch. Recently, I realized that I have the option to pretend that the exposure does not exist, in spite the fact that a teen boy at the gym called me "gay boy." The fact that people are contacting me asking for help, seeking support and major publications requesting an interview made me think that I have to look at all this very differently.

I decided on the option to be informed, to understand that my experience is unique and that my situation, because of the exposure, is also unique. I did not want to live with any pain or resentment this film was making me feel. So I downloaded the HBO app and watched the film. Here are my thoughts:

• There are many heavy topics in the film that are hard and complicated to address. I am no expert and I will only focus on the context of how my video was used in the film. I do agree that we have in our Church culture a long way to go in regards to unconditional love and be that "open door as a church" without condoning. As I watched the film today in fasting and prayer, I prayed to have the spirit of discernment to be able to get from this information what will bless me and remove what the spirit dictates in my heart that is not for me. I actually shed a few tears watching this film. Again, the Holy Ghost should be your guide if you decide to watch this or any information that could sway your testimony in any direction, make sure that the Spirit is there to guide you.

• The use of my video in the context of the film. So, here we have John Dehlin talking about his credentials, then showing my video and Jessycas video to state that the Church still encourages MOM and celibacy. Then stating that MOM have been a disaster and linking it back to suicide. When the M&G site came out, a good straight friend of mine that left the church a couple years before this event messaged me this: "I was touched by your story on the new Mormons site. I became aware of it from a Moromon stories link via John Dehlin. Many of the comments about it were negative and cynical. I hope you don't mind that I shared a little about what I think of you and I believe you're truly doing what you think is right… And I respect that. You are a great man and friend." I also was told by a friend that John Dehlin said that a MOM marriage is like having Lupus. With that said, watching this film with John speaking as an authority on the topic reminded me of what I shared here awhile back. "Never waste your time trying to explain who you are to people who are committed to misunderstand you." I am glad I watched the film. I now see how a well-intended message can be distorted to fulfill any specific motive. Once more, we have to rely on the Spirit to guide us.

• Lastly, I was reminded that each one of us is in a different journey, Dan and his struggle with the gospel, Tyle Glenn with all the pain that he endured and how he has chosen to express it, John Dehlin with his own experience and (in my opinion) lack of understanding of the atonement. All of us have a very unique perspective. I respect perspectives but I can not let others tell my story. We all have the right to tell our story. Please tell your story always. Be not afraid to act under the direction of the Spirit because we have the ability to touch other people's lives one by one like no one can. We might not have the huge megaphone Dan has, but we have something he does not, we have our stories and when the Spirit testifies of our stories, that's when the miracle happens! That's when we can truly change lives. We might not all agree, and that is ok. But we, in this community, should be shoulder to shoulder living in love and understanding.

I would hope that we stop triggering shame to each other. That our comments and interactions are more civil, even if we do not agree. That we leverage the gospel principles to act and support each other. It is interesting how many straight allies feel the need to tell our stories. I believe that we can tell our stories more effectively as we grow more in self-love, self-acceptance and truly convert ourselves to love every single aspect of us, that is including our SSA/gay experience in the light of the gospel and the Savior. I know that at times it sucks to be SSA/gay, I know that at times it is amazing. That is called life. Straight, gay, whatever we experience. I do hope really that we can truly "Live Love" instead of "Love Loud." Love you all my friends. Hugs!

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by kllindley

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If achieving Zion means we’ll always agree then let’s hope Zion never happens.  

Agreement doesn't mean we will be identical in immortality anymore than it means it in mortality.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The shame over premarital sex is strongly socially conditioned, and arguably doesn’t even exist in other cultures.  

"Arguably"?  Yes, some cultures don't have the proscription.  Others do, and massively so. Take Islamic cultures for example -- and they are far, far more strict.  And some other cultures are perfectly OK with adultery, and still others have quite disgusting behaviors, too.   So what?  Quite frankly, I'm not a moral relativist, and I don't think that God is, either.  

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Taboos in other cultures are equally foreign to us in the USA.  Assuming God is always driving these feelings is where I disagree.  

I assume the Light of Christ does not provide detailed instructions on moral behavior, but entails a certain degree of impulse to proper living -- which is determined by the culture one lives in.

And inasmuch as the cultures in question do not know of God's true law, they get a pass, until they do know better.

Acts 17:30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree about the honor code, and I know many orthodox members who also have concerns about it.  

I required my children to live by an honor code while living in my house.  It wasn't the BYU honor code, and I did not refer to it as a "code", but they all understood it, even if they disagreed.  It was my house.  When they moved out they could do as they wished.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And yet here we are fellow Mormons with very different opinions on how to treat people.  All part of this same sociality. 

On some level I suppose; the entire world is one sociality in some respects. And individually we are unique, and individuality is preserved even when we appear common. Zion begins where two individuals possess some essentials common with Christ (Matthew 18:20), and then expands into having "all things common." (3 Nephi 26:19). So here is a spectrum of sociality in one sense and a sociality that is Zion (or other discrete frequencies) along that spectrum.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"Arguably"?  Yes, some cultures don't have the proscription.  Others do, and massively so. Take Islamic cultures for example -- and they are far, far more strict.  And some other cultures are perfectly OK with adultery, and still others have quite disgusting behaviors, too.   So what?  Quite frankly, I'm not a moral relativist, and I don't think that God is, either.  

I assume the Light of Christ does not provide detailed instructions on moral behavior, but entails a certain degree of impulse to proper living -- which is determined by the culture one lives in.

And inasmuch as the cultures in question do not know of God's true law, they get a pass, until they do know better.

Acts 17:30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

I required my children to live by an honor code while living in my house.  It wasn't the BYU honor code, and I did not refer to it as a "code", but they all understood it, even if they disagreed.  It was my house.  When they moved out they could do as they wished.

You seem to be acknowledging that different cultures have different taboos and place shame differently than we do, then how can you also claim that God is driving these feelings, when they clearly are influenced by environment?  

Also, the fact that you have certain rules at your home and the right to enforce them or that BYU has certain rules, doesn't make those rules fair and morally the best rules for students at BYU or your children at your home.  Laws and rules are constantly being evaluated and revised in society, and throughout the history of BYU as well.  Why should we assume the current honor code is the ideal one, when it was substantially different less than a century ago.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

Apologies for the delay, but as Calm pointed out, I was waiting to hear back and then it was the weekend.  

I'll just say in presenting this information, that I greatly appreciate and admire this individual's courage in sharing his experience in a world that is especially hostile to LGBT individuals of Faith.  

Thanks for providing this person's story.  I don't know who they are specifically, and I don't remember where in the documentary a video from the MormonandGay site was shown.  Just a couple comments.

It sounds like this person's main contention with the content shown in the documentary, is not that the video clip shown in any way misrepresented him or his experience.  It sounds like his primary contention is with John Dehlin and statements John made in the video and outside of the documentary where John has shared how mixed orientation marriages statistically showed very poor results on life satisfaction kinds of measures.  

Maybe I missed it in this review, but it doesn't sound like this person hated the documentary or felt like his words were taken out of context as you asserted earlier.  It does seem like the video was used without his permission from what he's stated.  I don't know about the legality of this from a fair use perspective if its already in the public domain, so I can't comment on that from a legal perspective.  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

One thing I admire about my wife is that as she says "I am not going to hide my head in the sand." Yesterday morning, my wife's best friend since childhood messaged me telling me that she and her husband were tearing up watching "Believer." Since the HBO release, I had several friends contacting me wanting to know what I think about it. I had no reference to the film only what the Church Public Affairs representative told me back in February and my conversation with Dan Reynold's brother Robert Reynolds in that month. Since I learned that a portion of my M&G video was used in the film, I've gone through periods of anxiety. People calling me or telling me that the film left them hating the church or hating the film, Dan, his band and the producers. Since I have not seen the film, I felt in the dark. I felt hurt and taken advantage. Robert Reynolds telling me that marriages like mine are bad for the LGBTQ community was the last punch. Recently, I realized that I have the option to pretend that the exposure does not exist, in spite the fact that a teen boy at the gym called me "gay boy." The fact that people are contacting me asking for help, seeking support and major publications requesting an interview made me think that I have to look at all this very differently.

I decided on the option to be informed, to understand that my experience is unique and that my situation, because of the exposure, is also unique. I did not want to live with any pain or resentment this film was making me feel. So I downloaded the HBO app and watched the film. Here are my thoughts:

• There are many heavy topics in the film that are hard and complicated to address. I am no expert and I will only focus on the context of how my video was used in the film. I do agree that we have in our Church culture a long way to go in regards to unconditional love and be that "open door as a church" without condoning. As I watched the film today in fasting and prayer, I prayed to have the spirit of discernment to be able to get from this information what will bless me and remove what the spirit dictates in my heart that is not for me. I actually shed a few tears watching this film. Again, the Holy Ghost should be your guide if you decide to watch this or any information that could sway your testimony in any direction, make sure that the Spirit is there to guide you.

• The use of my video in the context of the film. So, here we have John Dehlin talking about his credentials, then showing my video and Jessycas video to state that the Church still encourages MOM and celibacy. Then stating that MOM have been a disaster and linking it back to suicide. When the M&G site came out, a good straight friend of mine that left the church a couple years before this event messaged me this: "I was touched by your story on the new Mormons site. I became aware of it from a Moromon stories link via John Dehlin. Many of the comments about it were negative and cynical. I hope you don't mind that I shared a little about what I think of you and I believe you're truly doing what you think is right… And I respect that. You are a great man and friend." I also was told by a friend that John Dehlin said that a MOM marriage is like having Lupus. With that said, watching this film with John speaking as an authority on the topic reminded me of what I shared here awhile back. "Never waste your time trying to explain who you are to people who are committed to misunderstand you." I am glad I watched the film. I now see how a well-intended message can be distorted to fulfill any specific motive. Once more, we have to rely on the Spirit to guide us.

• Lastly, I was reminded that each one of us is in a different journey, Dan and his struggle with the gospel, Tyle Glenn with all the pain that he endured and how he has chosen to express it, John Dehlin with his own experience and (in my opinion) lack of understanding of the atonement. All of us have a very unique perspective. I respect perspectives but I can not let others tell my story. We all have the right to tell our story. Please tell your story always. Be not afraid to act under the direction of the Spirit because we have the ability to touch other people's lives one by one like no one can. We might not have the huge megaphone Dan has, but we have something he does not, we have our stories and when the Spirit testifies of our stories, that's when the miracle happens! That's when we can truly change lives. We might not all agree, and that is ok. But we, in this community, should be shoulder to shoulder living in love and understanding.

I would hope that we stop triggering shame to each other. That our comments and interactions are more civil, even if we do not agree. That we leverage the gospel principles to act and support each other. It is interesting how many straight allies feel the need to tell our stories. I believe that we can tell our stories more effectively as we grow more in self-love, self-acceptance and truly convert ourselves to love every single aspect of us, that is including our SSA/gay experience in the light of the gospel and the Savior. I know that at times it sucks to be SSA/gay, I know that at times it is amazing. That is called life. Straight, gay, whatever we experience. I do hope really that we can truly "Live Love" instead of "Love Loud." Love you all my friends. Hugs!

@kllindley - thanks for sharing. This person sounds like an amazing individual. You had made the following claim...

Quote

So are you also inspired to silence any LGBT brothers and sisters who support the Church and sustain our leaders? Or just to use their stories without permission and take their words out of context?

I don't see that the words were taken out of context. In fact it sounds like the individual largely agreed with one of the key messages of the film but didn't appreciate John Dehlin's commentary. I can appreciate that because like was noted later, everyone has a different journey and deserves to be able to tell their own story. So while I can appreciate not liking the commentary associated with the short clip, it doesn't mean the clip was taken out of context. I don't see the issue of the story being used without permission being addressed. He does state that he "learned" his clip was used in the movie and that he felt taken advantage of. That's super unfortunate, but doesn't mean that the person didn't give permission for the clip to be used. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I can't tell. I'm not sure how fair use laws work to know whether or not permission was even required legally. It definitely sounds like the use of the clip in the film has caused some struggles for this person and I'm sorry about that. But I don't know that it's right to make accusations against Reynolds when it's very unclear that he did anything wrong. "I would hope that we stop triggering shame to each other."

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for providing this person's story.  I don't know who they are specifically, and I don't remember where in the documentary a video from the MormonandGay site was shown.  Just a couple comments.

It sounds like this person's main contention with the content shown in the documentary, is not that the video clip shown in any way misrepresented him or his experience.  It sounds like his primary contention is with John Dehlin and statements John made in the video and outside of the documentary where John has shared how mixed orientation marriages statistically showed very poor results on life satisfaction kinds of measures.  

Maybe I missed it in this review, but it doesn't sound like this person hated the documentary or felt like his words were taken out of context as you asserted earlier.  It does seem like the video was used without his permission from what he's stated.  I don't know about the legality of this from a fair use perspective if its already in the public domain, so I can't comment on that from a legal perspective.  

I have a video of the clip, but it's 7.6 mb and the site limits uploads to 4.9 mb.

Regarding your attempt to dispute his hurt and anger:

"You want to debate whether Bill's experience of trauma is factually accurate or legitimate.  I think thats not even possible for one and I also think its out of bounds for you to critique him in that way."

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I have a video of the clip, but it's 7.6 mb and the site limits uploads to 4.9 mb.

Regarding your attempt to dispute his hurt and anger:

"You want to debate whether Bill's experience of trauma is factually accurate or legitimate.  I think thats not even possible for one and I also think its out of bounds for you to critique him in that way."

If you can provide a link to the MormonandGay site for the video clip, that would probably be best.

As for your taking a quote of mine from a different thread on a different topic, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  It seems like you are trying to accuse me of some kind of insensitivity to this person's story?  How has anything I've said been insensitive?  

Also, you didn't respond to any of my actual comments about the story you shared.  Could you try and keep things on topic and respond, I wasn't being intentionally insensitive at all, and I'm not sure how you could have got that impression from my comments.  

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

@kllindley - thanks for sharing. This person sounds like an amazing individual. You had made the following claim...

I don't see that the words were taken out of context. In fact it sounds like the individual largely agreed with one of the key messages of the film but didn't appreciate John Dehlin's commentary. I can appreciate that because like was noted later, everyone has a different journey and deserves to be able to tell their own story. So while I can appreciate not liking the commentary associated with the short clip, it doesn't mean the clip was taken out of context. I don't see the issue of the story being used without permission being addressed. He does state that he "learned" his clip was used in the movie and that he felt taken advantage of. That's super unfortunate, but doesn't mean that the person didn't give permission for the clip to be used. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I can't tell. I'm not sure how fair use laws work to know whether or not permission was even required legally. It definitely sounds like the use of the clip in the film has caused some struggles for this person and I'm sorry about that. But I don't know that it's right to make accusations against Reynolds when it's very unclear that he did anything wrong. "I would hope that we stop triggering shame to each other."

Thanks. I posted a comment that he chose to share for this board. He did not choose to share other parts of his story, for fear of being attacked on this hostile environment. I respect that decision, and it appears that the was right to be concerned.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks. I posted a comment that he chose to share for this board. He did not choose to share other parts of his story, for fear of being attacked on this hostile environment. I respect that decision, and it appears that the was right to be concerned.

 

Are you suggesting that I'm attacking him or being hostile in any way towards his story? If anything, I'm questioning your interpretation and failure to back up your original claims. His story does not support your claims.

Edited August 6, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[kllindley]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

With that said, watching this film with John speaking as an authority on the topic reminded me of what I shared here awhile back. "Never waste your time trying to explain who you are to people who are committed to misunderstand you." I am glad I watched the film. I now see how a well-intended message can be distorted to fulfill any specific motive

These are his words. He says his well-intentioned message was distorted. You all can attempt to minimize or explain away his perspective. 

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you can provide a link to the MormonandGay site for the video clip, that would probably be best.

The clip is from Believer, showing how his video was used. 

 

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for your taking a quote of mine from a different thread on a different topic, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  It seems like you are trying to accuse me of some kind of insensitivity to this person's story?  How has anything I've said been insensitive?  

Also, you didn't respond to any of my actual comments about the story you shared.  Could you try and keep things on topic and respond, I wasn't being intentionally insensitive at all, and I'm not sure how you could have got that impression from my comments.  

I didn't say anything about insensitivity. Where did you get that? I was noting how quick you were to debate whether his experience of hurt and betrayal were legitimate or actually valid. He said his message was distorted. You dispute that. 

 

 

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that I'm attacking him or being hostile in any way towards his story? If anything, I'm questioning your interpretation and failure to back up your original claims. His story does not support your claims.

He read my comments and original claims and offered that statement to support them. He did not tell me my interpretation was not accurate or that his story did not support my claims. Of the two of you, I will go with his opinion. 

[kllindley]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see that the words were taken out of context.

 

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

"With that said, watching this film with John speaking as an authority on the topic reminded me of what I shared here awhile back. "Never waste your time trying to explain who you are to people who are committed to misunderstand you." I am glad I watched the film. I now see how a well-intended message can be distorted to fulfill any specific motive."

I thought taken out of context was more benign than distorted. But you're right. His actual words were distorted. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see the issue of the story being used without permission being addressed. He does state that he "learned" his clip was used in the movie and that he felt taken advantage of. That's super unfortunate, but doesn't mean that the person didn't give permission for the clip to be used.

He says that he learned about his clip being used in February after the movie premiered at Sundance. That's some good gymnastics to have him granting permission after it had premiered. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It definitely sounds like the use of the clip in the film has caused some struggles for this person and I'm sorry about that. But I don't know that it's right to make accusations against Reynolds when it's very unclear that he did anything wrong.

My biggest complaint is what happened when this person tried to reach out to Dan to talk about this issue. Dan didn't want to personally talk to him. He had his brother do it. Robert Reynolds spoke for Dan saying that this person's marriage is bad for the LGBT community and that they were not willing to make any further effort to understand or support this individual, or reconsider the message. 

[kllindley]

15 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but this is strikes me as WAY out of left field.

Kllindley, can you provide any evidence that Dan Reynolds or anyone else is attempting to "silence any LGBT brothers and sisters who support the Church or sustain [it's] leaders"?

 

15 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hmm.  End of the thread, and nothing yet.....

Well, in the past, I would have felt that I owed you some additional response. However, after our last "discussion," I'm not interested in being the target of your bitterness again. Thanks. 

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, kllindley said:

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

With that said, watching this film with John speaking as an authority on the topic reminded me of what I shared here awhile back. "Never waste your time trying to explain who you are to people who are committed to misunderstand you." I am glad I watched the film. I now see how a well-intended message can be distorted to fulfill any specific motive

These are his words. He says his well-intentioned message was distorted. You all can attempt to minimize or explain away his perspective.

I haven't intended to minimize or explain away his perspective.  Please show where I've done this.  You're making false accusations here.  

29 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The clip is from Believer, showing how his video was used. 

I don't have access to the Believer documentary as I'm not an HBO subscriber.  I watched it at Sunstone.  If the video is on the Mormonandgay web site, I just thought that would be the easiest way to see it again if you had a link to the video.  

36 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I was noting how quick you were to debate whether his experience of hurt and betrayal were legitimate or actually valid. He said his message was distorted. You dispute that. 

But I didn't dispute that at all, read my actual words and tell me where I've done this.  You're imagining things.  

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't intended to minimize or explain away his perspective.  Please show where I've done this.  You're making false accusations here.  

He says that his message was distorted, but you said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like this person's main contention with the content shown in the documentary, is not that the video clip shown in any way misrepresented him or his experience.  It sounds like his primary contention is with John Dehlin and statements John made in the video and outside of the documentary where John has shared how mixed orientation marriages statistically showed very poor results on life satisfaction kinds of measures.  

Maybe I missed it in this review, but it doesn't sound like this person hated the documentary or felt like his words were taken out of context as you asserted earlier. 

 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But I didn't dispute that at all, read my actual words and tell me where I've done this.  You're imagining things. 

You said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like this person's main contention with the content shown in the documentary, is not that the video clip shown in any way misrepresented him or his experience.

And 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe I missed it in this review, but it doesn't sound like this person hated the documentary or felt like his words were taken out of context as you asserted earlier.