Dan Reynolds - Prophet

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

6 minutes 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. 

 

And you said that I attempted to "dispute his hurt and anger", and that I attempted to "minimize or explain away his perspective", and how "quick you were to debate whether his experience of hurt and betrayal were legitimate or actually valid".  

None of your accusations are accurate. 

As for his statement about his message being distorted.  It really lacks clarity about what was distorted about his message.  I'd like to better understand that.  He seems to have focused on the John Dehlin portions primarily, as I mentioned in my first reply to you.  I don't know how his message was distorted from what he said.  I don't know how things were taken out of context from what you've provided.  Lets focus a little more on what he said, because I'd like to better understand it. 

Quote

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.

This part seems to suggest to me that it was how John Dehlin was referred to as an authority figure in the documentary that bothered him most.  And also that John is reminding people that the LDS church encourages mixed orientation marriages and celibacy.  I'm not sure how this distorts your friend's message, and I would love to watch that video of your friend to better understand what the message of the video specifically was.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

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

2-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. 

3- 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. 

Good grief.

1- again, the clip wasn't taken out of context. He's claiming that the distortion was in Dehlin's commentary. So, no. His actual words were not distorted. I'm not sure that his words come into it at all. He simply doesn't agree with Dehlin's comments, which is fine. But that doesn't mean his words were distorted.

2- It doesn't take gymnastics to understand that you can give approval for your ideas or work to be used in another project but then not know if or how it was used until you see the final product. Have you never been interviewed or given a quote to the newspaper, or something similar? I've given interviews, granting the newspaper to report on what I've said. But there have been times my quote wasn't used at all. There have been times my quote was used, but in a way that was surprising. And there are times a long statement has been reduced to a short summary. Just because I gave permission doesn't mean I have full control over how it is used. Does that make sense or is it too gymnastic for you? If your friend didn't give permission he could state that and take any question out. However, like I stated before, I'm not sure how Fair Use laws would apply, or whether permission for such a short excerpt of the clip would be required. Personally, I would prefer permission be sought instead of using Fair Use, but I don't know how these kinds of things are usually done.

3- Dan didn't want to talk to him? I guess I missed that in the story. How does he know? Did Robert Reynolds say that? Or does it make sense to have his brother, who was producing, talk to the individual? Again, you're jumping to very negative conclusions here. Having said that, if Dan's brother said what you're friend is reporting, then that really stinks. I think Robert Reynolds should be called on that. People try to seek an audience with others all the time, only to be rebuffed or to be pushed off to meet with a subordinate. If you don't know how that works, you could try asking Sam Young  

 

 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

again, the clip wasn't taken out of context. He's claiming that the distortion was in Dehlin's commentary. So, no. His actual words were not distorted. I'm not sure that his words come into it at all. He simply doesn't agree with Dehlin's comments, which is fine. But that doesn't mean his words were distorted

So he says his message was "distorted." (His word). You say it wasn't. But then you act surprised that I suggest you are invalidating his experience. Okay. Got it.  

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It doesn't take gymnastics to understand that you can give approval for your ideas or work to be used in another project but then not know if or how it was used until you see the final product. Have you never been interviewed or given a quote to the newspaper, or something similar? I've given interviews, granting the newspaper to report on what I've said. But there have been times my quote wasn't used at all. There have been times my quote was used, but in a way that was surprising. And there are times a long statement has been reduced to a short summary. Just because I gave permission doesn't mean I have full control over how it is used. Does that make sense or is it too gymnastic for you? If your friend didn't give permission he could state that and take any question out. However, like I stated before, I'm not sure how Fair Use laws would apply, or whether permission for such a short excerpt of the clip would be required. Personally, I would prefer permission be sought instead of using Fair Use, but I don't know how these kinds of things are usually done

Again, I acknowledge that it is somewhat unclear in this statement, but this statement is a I have permission to share here. It does fall under Fair Use, so permission isn't a legal requirement here, buy an ethical one. Especially from someone who is claiming to be a voice for oppressed minorities, it's rich to see him oppress those he doesn't agree with. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by kllindley

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Dan didn't want to talk to him? I guess I missed that in the story. How does he know? Did Robert Reynolds say that? Or does it make sense to have his brother, who was producing, talk to the individual? Again, you're jumping to very negative conclusions here. Having said that, if Dan's brother said what you're friend is reporting, then that really stinks. I think Robert Reynolds should be called on that. People try to seek an audience with others all the time, only to be rebuffed or to be pushed off to meet with a subordinate. If you don't know how that works, you could try asking Sam Young  

Fair point regarding the conclusion I drew about Dan's motives. However, it's not like the Church used Sam Young's video and then refused to meet with him to discuss that. 

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure how this distorts your friend's message, and I would love to watch that video of your friend to better understand what the message of the video specifically was.  

 

But you're not questioning the validity of his claim that his message was distorted. You just want to review the evidence for yourself.  Can you really not see the double standard you use here? 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So he says his message was "distorted." (His word). You say it wasn't. But then you act surprised that I suggest you are invalidating his experience. Okay. Got it.  

You didn't accuse me of "invalidating his experience". You said...

Quote

 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.

I have neither attacked him, or been hostile to him. All I can go off is what you posted. If there is more you know, or think you know, from private conversations, then I have no clue about that. How could I? I guess I'll have to take your word since you can't back it up in any other way. I'm sorry if that's all you can share, but it really doesn't answer the questions I had and therefore really doesn't answer the CFR in a way that is very satisfying to me. Still, I appreciate your efforts to share and I recognize that you may have more info than I do. But I do think you should be cautious about making accusation unless you have the goods to back it up.

[kllindley]

Look, I probably should have known better than to believe that answering the CFR would have actually meant anything. I guess I thought more highly of this board than that. I'm not going to debate his experience any further. It is what is it, and those of us in the Mormon LGBT community have a right to our own hurt and anger at the treatment we receive from the LGBT community and their allies. If some people are incapable or unwilling to recognize or honor that, so be it. 

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You didn't accuse me of "invalidating his experience". You said...

I have neither attacked him, or been hostile to him. All I can go off is what you posted. If there is more you know, or think you know, from private conversations, then I have no clue about that. How could I? I guess I'll have to take your word since you can't back it up in any other way. I'm sorry if that's all you can share, but it really doesn't answer the questions I had and therefore really doesn't answer the CFR in a way that is very satisfying to me. Still, I appreciate your efforts to share and I recognize that you may have more info than I do. But I do think you should be cautious about making accusation unless you have the goods to back it up.

Fair enough. I think I can be more clear in the future. 

It sounds like it's okay to criticize the Church or Elder Cook without the goods to back it up. However, in a situation like this, it is important that I just talk about my feelings of being ignored and invalidated.

I have to be clear that what I object to isn't actually Dan Reynolds or John Dehlin's behavior, but the fact that their actions and words make me feel like they and all the progressive LGBT/allies see me as an enemy.  I have to be explicit that it really doesn't matter what anyone did or said as part of LoveLoud.  The fact that I felt discouraged and marginalized is the important part.

And it doesn't matter how many people were uplifted or didn't feel attacked, or how many people did. Because in this approach, if even one feels it, it must be valid. 

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But you're not questioning the validity of his claim that his message was distorted. You just want to review the evidence for yourself.  Can you really not see the double standard you use here? 

I honestly have no clue why you are approaching a conversation the way you are doing on this thread.  Its like you're living in a fantasy world where you think myself and others are going to attack you and attack your friend's experience and nobody is doing that at all.  You instead are preemptively making false accusations towards myself and others, and you seem extremely sensitive and frustrated when we're just asking very reasonable clarifying questions.  

Nobody is attacking you or your friend.  

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I honestly have no clue why you are approaching a conversation the way you are doing on this thread.  Its like you're living in a fantasy world where you think myself and others are going to attack you and attack your friend's experience and nobody is doing that at all.  You instead are preemptively making false accusations towards myself and others, and you seem extremely sensitive and frustrated when we're just asking very reasonable clarifying questions.  

Nobody is attacking you or your friend.  

So, ignoring what feels like an obvious attempt to gaslight me, let's explore this confusing question. 

You state that you have no idea why I would approach this conversation this way. You opened this thread by pointing out how much more prophetic Dan Reynolds is than the leadership of the Church. To someone who has been hurt by Dan Reynolds and sustains the leaders of the Church as prophets, that made me feel that my faith was a joke. The fact that you have so much respect for a man who told me that sharing my experience is "literally killing" people, seemed to clearly communicate what you think of my experience. I'm sorry you are so confused that I would be defensive.

I'm glad you had such a wonderful experience with your prophet. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, ignoring what feels like an obvious attempt to gaslight me, let's explore this confusing question. 

You state that you have no idea why I would approach this conversation this way. You opened this thread by pointing out how much more prophetic Dan Reynolds is than the leadership of the Church. To someone who has been hurt by Dan Reynolds and sustains the leaders of the Church as prophets, that made me feel that my faith was a joke. The fact that you have so much respect for a man who told me that sharing my experience is "literally killing" people, seemed to clearly communicate what you think of my experience. I'm sorry you are so confused that I would be defensive.

I'm glad you had such a wonderful experience with your prophet. 

Wow. I must have missed that. Dan Reynolds told you that sharing your experience is "literally killing" people?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

So, ignoring what feels like an obvious attempt to gaslight me, let's explore this confusing question. 

You state that you have no idea why I would approach this conversation this way. You opened this thread by pointing out how much more prophetic Dan Reynolds is than the leadership of the Church. To someone who has been hurt by Dan Reynolds and sustains the leaders of the Church as prophets, that made me feel that my faith was a joke. The fact that you have so much respect for a man who told me that sharing my experience is "literally killing" people, seemed to clearly communicate what you think of my experience. I'm sorry you are so confused that I would be defensive.

I'm glad you had such a wonderful experience with your prophet. 

I've tried to be respectful to you throughout this thread.  I have made no attempt to gaslight you.  I'm sorry you are frustrated with Dan Reynolds.  I had no idea he told you that sharing your story is literally killing people, that sounds horrible and I of course wouldn't support that.  

I didn't start this thread directed at you, and had no intention of rubbing salt in your wounds.  I think its important that we always try to be respectful of the experiences of others, even those we disagree with. 

I would also like to point out that I know of people who've been traumatized by LDS church leaders and statements and positions of the church.  That when people support them as "prophets" that this can be traumatic for those who've been hurt by church leaders in the same way that you feel hurt by Dan Reynolds.  Yet, this message board is here to discuss topics of faith, so we have to try our best to be respectful and tolerant of the ideas of others, even when sometimes those ideas have hurt us personally or those that we love.  I know that I personally have room to improve in this respect, and I will try to continue to improve on this.  

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I believe I said that God works with us on that.  I think you missed it in your rush to gotcha.  When someone has been taught from childhood that eating pork is forbidden, or saying the name "Voldemort" in unacceptable in polite society, then there will be a recognition inherent in the person that proper behavior is to avoid pork, or to say "he who must not be named" instead.  Some will ignore this Light and flout that which he has been taught, like a lapsed Jew or Muslim might like bacon for breakfast, or like Harry Potter did, in defiance of the custom.  Others will maintain the taught observance.  When, as Paul indicated, the person is taught that God has commanded differently, and a conviction is gained that God has indeed commanded otherwise, the person now may or may not eat pork at his option, and "Voldemort" might become a commonly-used joke word.  Like an LDS Jew who still keeps Kosher because he feels comfortable with it.

In summary, God drives, or has placed within us a drive to conform to that which we have been taught.  You will recall the proverb, "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it," found in Prov. 22:6.  This is what Paul was getting at when he said that God had winked at the Athenians' behavior in times past.  

I suspect that for those who worshipped Zeus faithfully, because they knew nothing about the true God of the Universe, their faithfulness will be counted to them as righteousness, because they did not know any better and had not been taught otherwise.  They'll still have to give it up, no question of that, but how can God fault people for doing that which they didn't know was wrong?  And that in conformance to the innate drive for worship, they worshipped that which they were taught to worship.  Should they be faulted for that?  I don't think so.

The Light of Christ is not some universal operating system installed in human beings at birth, containing all the truth and commandments the baby will need.  It is a drive to do what is right.  Ignored by some, but obeyed in some degree by others.

Quote

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.  

I didn't say they were ideal, the best rules for students, or the most fair, for either BYU students or my home.  You are so good with straw men, Hope.  I am in agreement with the BYU honor code, despite its flaws, because it is better than what might otherwise be set.  If improvements can be made, they should be.  IDEALLY, no honor code should be necessary.  Like Joseph said, they've been taught correct principles, and they should govern themselves.  And in society there should be no laws, as such, because all children should be taught correct principles and should govern themselves accordingly (the Light of Christ again).  But are we in an IDEAL society?  Hell no.  Codes and laws are necessary because people are imperfect -- especially teenagers and younger adults are imperfect, simply because they are in a growing stage where they very frequently take it upon themselves to push boundaries and experiment, very frequently unwisely.  Do you let your 3-year-old run free in front of your house, into the road, down into the drainage ditch, anywhere he or she wants to go?  No, you set boundaries -- hard boundaries, because the little loves don't know what the good grief they're doing yet.  When they are 10 the rules and boundaries have softened in some ways, but hardened up more in others.  And so it goes, and we hope by age 18 they can survive on their own, but sometimes that is a crapshoot.

I don't know if you noticed it or not -- because I'm sure you've never heard about this -- but  some 18 - 22 year old adults let off the leash for the first time do utterly stupid things, like drinking themselves to death at frat parties, screwing every woman who will let them, driving cars in completely irresponsible ways, and smell because they stop taking baths, cleaning their clothes, and so on.  Should they or should they not be discouraged from such self-defeating behaviors?  Open the floodgates!  Do what you want!  No boundaries, no rules, and everyone for him or herself?

I've raised about 10 kids to adulthood, and I am well aware what kind of screwups they can get themselves into if they are not properly managed.  The BYU honor code is imperfect (I've now said this twice), but I am fairly convinced that its provisions grew out of the observed stupidities of the students who attend the school.  Maybe they were drawn up by some stiff rod who loved to make rules for other people to follow, because he (or she) had a god complex, but I doubt it.

Oh, and by the way, less than a century ago the high school graduation rate and the teenage pregnancy rate among other kinds of "things" were less of a problem than they are now.  The BYU honor code for those bygone days probably suited the times, but might possibly be less suitable now.  

Edited August 6, 2018 by Stargazer

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've tried to be respectful to you throughout this thread.  I have made no attempt to gaslight you.  I'm sorry you are frustrated with Dan Reynolds.  I had no idea he told you that sharing your story is literally killing people, that sounds horrible and I of course wouldn't support that.  

I didn't start this thread directed at you, and had no intention of rubbing salt in your wounds.  I think its important that we always try to be respectful of the experiences of others, even those we disagree with. 

I would also like to point out that I know of people who've been traumatized by LDS church leaders and statements and positions of the church.  That when people support them as "prophets" that this can be traumatic for those who've been hurt by church leaders in the same way that you feel hurt by Dan Reynolds.  Yet, this message board is here to discuss topics of faith, so we have to try our best to be respectful and tolerant of the ideas of others, even when sometimes those ideas have hurt us personally or those that we love.  I know that I personally have room to improve in this respect, and I will try to continue to improve on this.  

Thanks.  I agree that it should be okay to discuss these issues.  I did interpret as dismissive the fact that you were quick to defend Bill's claim on the other thread and then respond the way you did here.  It seemed to me that only one type of hurt was being privileged as valid.  I will be the first to admit that these issues do affect me personally as well as those I care about.   

As far as gaslighting goes, I accept that you were not trying to gaslight me.   Maybe it will help you understand to point out that using the phrase: "living in a fantasy world" did not seem respectful of my experiences.    

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks.  I agree that it should be okay to discuss these issues.  I did interpret as dismissive the fact that you were quick to defend Bill's claim on the other thread and then respond the way you did here.  It seemed to me that only one type of hurt was being privileged as valid.  I will be the first to admit that these issues do affect me personally as well as those I care about.   

As far as gaslighting goes, I accept that you were not trying to gaslight me.   Maybe it will help you understand to point out that using the phrase: "living in a fantasy world" did not seem respectful of my experiences.    

Can you share any details of the conversation you had with Dan Reynolds when he told you that telling your story is literally killing people?

 

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. I must have missed that.

Okay.  I assumed that you'd followed the conversation about the Documentary here over the past few months.  That's why I was so taken aback by your comments.  I apologize for making an assumption.  That's my bad.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I believe I said that God works with us on that.  I think you missed it in your rush to gotcha.  When someone has been taught from childhood that eating pork is forbidden, or saying the name "Voldemort" in unacceptable in polite society, then there will be a recognition inherent in the person that proper behavior is to avoid pork, or to say "he who must not be named" instead.  Some will ignore this Light and flout that which he has been taught, like a lapsed Jew or Muslim might like bacon for breakfast, or like Harry Potter did, in defiance of the custom.  Others will maintain the taught observance.  When, as Paul indicated, the person is taught that God has commanded differently, and a conviction is gained that God has indeed commanded otherwise, the person now may or may not eat pork at his option, and "Voldemort" might become a commonly-used joke word.  Like an LDS Jew who still keeps Kosher because he feels comfortable with it.

In summary, God drives, or has placed within us a drive to conform to that which we have been taught.  You will recall the proverb, "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it," found in Prov. 22:6.  This is what Paul was getting at when he said that God had winked at the Athenians' behavior in times past.  

I suspect that for those who worshipped Zeus faithfully, because they knew nothing about the true God of the Universe, their faithfulness will be counted to them as righteousness, because they did not know any better and had not been taught otherwise.  They'll still have to give it up, no question of that, but how can God fault people for doing that which they didn't know was wrong?  And that in conformance to the innate drive for worship, they worshipped that which they were taught to worship.  Should they be faulted for that?  I don't think so.

The Light of Christ is not some universal operating system installed in human beings at birth, containing all the truth and commandments the baby will need.  It is a drive to do what is right.  Ignored by some, but obeyed in some degree by others.

Thanks for adding some clarification, and I have a couple questions about what you've described.  You're saying this drive to conform comes from God, many would say its an evolved trait, either way, how do you then jump to saying this is a drive to "do what is right"?    If this is a conditioned response, the desire to conform, how is that "right"?  Thinking about New Testament stories where Jesus is teaching people to do the opposite of what they were conditioned to do, like in the Good Samaritan story or the story about healing a person on the sabbath, there are numerous stories where Jesus is going against the conformity of his society.  Which is "right" and how do we determine we're doing "right" when it goes against our conditioning.  

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I didn't say they were ideal, the best rules for students, or the most fair, for either BYU students or my home.  You are so good with straw men, Hope.  I am in agreement with the BYU honor code, despite its flaws, because it is better than what might otherwise be set.

You're not saying the honor code is ideal, but its "better than what might otherwise be set".  Do you not see the contradiction here?  I think it has serious flaws, you even go on to mention some flaws, but you still want to keep the status quo in place?  Why not improve things.  Why not examine the outcomes, and determine where the current system has flaws.  Some of those flaws get exposed by scandals, like the sexual harassment title 9 issues reported on last year, and then reforms are put in place to fix that specific problem.  But should we really be relying on scandals to expose problems in the system.  Shouldn't we be proactively improving our policies instead?  

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know if you noticed it or not -- because I'm sure you've never heard about this -- but  some 18 - 22 year old adults let off the leash for the first time do utterly stupid things, like drinking themselves to death at frat parties, screwing every woman who will let them, driving cars in completely irresponsible ways, and smell because they stop taking baths, cleaning their clothes, and so on.  Should they or should they not be discouraged from such self-defeating behaviors?  Open the floodgates!  Do what you want!  No boundaries, no rules, and everyone for him or herself?

Of course I'm not advocating for a no rules society or a no rules BYU (now's who's making the strawman).  Are you familiar with studies that show that the creation of rules can be contributing factor in creating negative outcomes rather than making them better.  Thinking of this recent BYU study on porn as an example.  I also listened to a very interesting podcast on this phenomenon as it relates to US immigration policies, you might want to check out the Malcolm Gladwell podcast I'm linking to for a very interesting listen.  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201704/religious-conflict-makes-porn-bad-relationships

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/25-general-chapman's-last-stand

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Okay.  I assumed that you'd followed the conversation about the Documentary here over the past few months.  That's why I was so taken aback by your comments.  I apologize for making an assumption.  That's my bad.

If I'd seen it, I didn't remember.

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks.  I agree that it should be okay to discuss these issues.  I did interpret as dismissive the fact that you were quick to defend Bill's claim on the other thread and then respond the way you did here.  It seemed to me that only one type of hurt was being privileged as valid.  I will be the first to admit that these issues do affect me personally as well as those I care about.   

As far as gaslighting goes, I accept that you were not trying to gaslight me.   Maybe it will help you understand to point out that using the phrase: "living in a fantasy world" did not seem respectful of my experiences.    

Thanks, thats fair.  I didn't lead with the fantasy world comment, that was only after I was getting frustrated with you continuing to accuse myself and Happy of things we weren't doing, and you didn't directly respond to any of my queries to explain why you were making those accusations.  But I agree that was a little over the top, and I apologize for saying it.  

[Calm]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69920-variety-lds-musician-confronts-his-church’s-lgbt-stance-in-new-sundance-documentary/?do=findComment&comment=1209832525

 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I'd seen it, I didn't remember.

Original source here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/danreynolds/status/1014232030148689921?lang=en

Edited August 6, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69920-variety-lds-musician-confronts-his-church’s-lgbt-stance-in-new-sundance-documentary/?do=findComment&comment=1209832525

 

Original source here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/danreynolds/status/1014232030148689921?lang=en

Also here:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-loveloud-mormon-lgbtq-666135/

Quote

We as Mormons, or people of faith, cannot stand by for one more day and support these harmful teachings that are literally killing our youth. 

 

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Also here:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-loveloud-mormon-lgbtq-666135/

 

Kllindley,

I just read the rollingstone interview, thanks for providing the link.  Is this what you meant when you said that Dan is “a man who told me that sharing my experience is ‘literally killing’ people“.  If so, you have some explaining to do.  Both myself and HappyJW interpreted your statement as something Dan told you personally and with respect to your mixed orientation marriage.  If this was false you need to clarify what Dan has or hasn’t told you, if he hasn’t ever interacted with you, then you need to make that very clear.  If he hasn’t ever commented about mixed orientation marriages that would be important to know as well.  You have a chance to correct the record, please do so.  

As for the Rollingstone interview, I thought it sounded excellent.  Dan’s statement about the policies and teaching of the church literally killing people, I don’t have a problem with.  It’s a strong statement, but as an advocate I think he feels there is enough evidence to support some correlation here, even if its difficult to quantify exactly what the effects of the policy are alongside all the other complicating factors.  It is a complicated thing to try and draw conclusive correlation to, but I think he’s sounding a warning based on the trends we’re seeing and I see that as brave and powerful.  

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Kllindley,

I just read the rollingstone interview, thanks for providing the link.  Is this what you meant when you said that Dan is “a man who told me that sharing my experience is ‘literally killing’ people“.  If so, you have some explaining to do.  Both myself and HappyJW interpreted your statement as something Dan told you personally and with respect to your mixed orientation marriage.  If this was false you need to clarify what Dan has or hasn’t told you, if he hasn’t ever interacted with you, then you need to make that very clear.  If he hasn’t ever commented about mixed orientation marriages that would be important to know as well.  You have a chance to correct the record, please do so.  

As for the Rollingstone interview, I thought it sounded excellent.  Dan’s statement about the policies and teaching of the church literally killing people, I don’t have a problem with.  It’s a strong statement, but as an advocate I think he feels there is enough evidence to support some correlation here, even if its difficult to quantify exactly what the effects of the policy are alongside all the other complicating factors.  It is a complicated thing to try and draw conclusive correlation to, but I think he’s sounding a warning based on the trends we’re seeing and I see that as brave and powerful.  

That and the tweet about literally killing our youth by saying same sex attraction.  

I'm sorry both you and HappyJW took it literally.  Of course Dan hasn't ever interacted with me personally.  I've tried to reach out to him, but he has chosen not to respond.  

But seriously, this whole thread has been greatly informative.  I will make sure to help both of you if ever you make any statement that isn't exactly backed up by the record.  Apparently, it's cool if Dan makes a strong statement, which may or may not actually be supported by the evidence.  Cause, that's brave and powerful.  But heaven forbid I use "took out of context" when someone else says "distorted."  Or use a metaphorical "told me" to describe a celebrity's public proclamations.  

I look forward to the future consistency.

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by kllindley

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

But seriously, this whole thread has been greatly informative ... 

I look forward to the future consistency.

In light of the almost complete lack of self-awareness that has been glaringly on display in this thread, I'll be here for you when the inevitable disappointment comes.