David Archuleta “Stepping Back” from Church

[jkwilliams]

"For my own mental health, I can't keep putting myself in a place where it's so conflicting where they say, 'We love you so much, but at the same time, you must change who you are. Oh, you can't? Then we're going to ignore this problem,'" says Archuleta, who has received support from his family since he made the decision. "I tried to hide from this all my life, and I can't. I just had to take a step away, take a break from religion — because for my own sanity, I did not want to weigh out whether it was better for me to live and exist, or if it was better for me not to exist," he adds. "It hurts me because my religion was everything for me. But you get to a point where you realize there are some things not right here. I need to just live my life, because I already know I'm okay how I am."

https://people.com/music/david-archuleta-steps-back-from-mormon-church-after-coming-out-as-queer/

[bluebell]

I saw this yesterday.  I wish him well.  I think there will also be quite a few members (who have supported his career) who will feel betrayed by this.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I saw this yesterday.  I wish him well.  I think there will also be quite a few members (who have supported his career) who will feel betrayed by this.

I’m happy for him, not really because of his religious choices, but because it sounds like he’s finally OK with who he is. It breaks my heart knowing he had considered suicide multiple times. Been there, done that. Much better to choose to be yourself and be happy.  

[rpn]

Why do we have to make this a THING.  (And the stepping back from headline isn't supported by the text in which he said his relationship with the church is complicated.)  We each have an entire lifetime to become like our Savior.   And most of us need all  of it.   Besides, this particular challenge is particularly difficult to navigate.   Any chance we could just leave him alone as he sorts this out?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

"For my own mental health, I can't keep putting myself in a place where it's so conflicting where they say, 'We love you so much, but at the same time, you must change who you are. Oh, you can't? Then we're going to ignore this problem,'" says Archuleta, who has received support from his family since he made the decision. "I tried to hide from this all my life, and I can't. I just had to take a step away, take a break from religion — because for my own sanity, I did not want to weigh out whether it was better for me to live and exist, or if it was better for me not to exist," he adds. "It hurts me because my religion was everything for me. But you get to a point where you realize there are some things not right here. I need to just live my life, because I already know I'm okay how I am."

https://people.com/music/david-archuleta-steps-back-from-mormon-church-after-coming-out-as-queer/

Sad.

He seemed a very nice guy- my ward of course is in LA and he occasionally stopped by from time to time, and as bishop at the time, I shook his hand and welcomed him; that's all really, but he had a good way or "countenance" about him, had a lot of "light".

Glad that he found a way which gives him peace.

[Tacenda]

I liked him on American Idol, and even bought his CD! Went to his Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat play as well, he played Joseph. I hope he can find the happiness he so deserves. 

[Emily]

I realize that lots of members send messages that same-sex attraction is, in and of itself, sinful and that can be very hurtful to gay members. That kind of attitude needs to change.

But the church doctrine does not need to change. The church itself has repeatedly outlined it's position on this subject: Simply being attracted to the opposite sex is not a sin. 

You can be gay and be a full-fledged, faithful member. You simply can't engage in sexual intimacy outside a heterosexual marriage and remain in good standing in the church.  So the position of members with same-sex attraction is no different from every other unmarried individual in the church.

Granted, most unmarried heterosexual members have the theoretical possibility of marriage. But many, for reasons of mental or physical health, life circumstances or lack of social skills, have a very slim chance of ever marrying.

Some members are actually married and have unfulfilling or non-existent sex lives. But they choose to remain married and faithful to their spouse.

These members are celibate. They get on with life, they build meaningful relationships that don't include sexual intimacy, and they wait for the promises that all blessings will come after the resurrection. 

Granted, a few single members leave the church as well --some because they are put off being single in a family oriented church. Some because they have decided to pursue sexual intimacy in a relationship that is something less than marriage. But no one publishes news articles about these members. 

That's why I find this kind of article... Self-indulgent? Probably not the best word. But it feels like he truly thinks circumstances are tougher for him than other members, and he can therefore justify a decision that really boils down to, "I didn't have enough faith in the church to make this particular sacrifice." 

I wish him well in his journey. I really do. But I would be more impressed if it came with fewer press releases.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Emily said:

I realize that lots of members send messages that same-sex attraction is, in and of itself, sinful and that can be very hurtful to gay members. That kind of attitude needs to change.

But the church doctrine does not need to change. The church itself has repeatedly outlined it's position on this subject: Simply being attracted to the opposite sex is not a sin. 

You can be gay and be a full-fledged, faithful member. You simply can't engage in sexual intimacy outside a heterosexual marriage and remain in good standing in the church.  So the position of members with same-sex attraction is no different from every other unmarried individual in the church.

Granted, most unmarried heterosexual members have the theoretical possibility of marriage. But many, for reasons of mental or physical health, life circumstances or lack of social skills, have a very slim chance of ever marrying.

Some members are actually married and have unfulfilling or non-existent sex lives. But they choose to remain married and faithful to their spouse.

These members are celibate. They get on with life, they build meaningful relationships that don't include sexual intimacy, and they wait for the promises that all blessings will come after the resurrection. 

Granted, a few single members leave the church as well --some because they are put off being single in a family oriented church. Some because they have decided to pursue sexual intimacy in a relationship that is something less than marriage. But no one publishes news articles about these members. 

That's why I find this kind of article... Self-indulgent? Probably not the best word. But it feels like he truly thinks circumstances are tougher for him than other members, and he can therefore justify a decision that really boils down to, "I didn't have enough faith in the church to make this particular sacrifice." 

I wish him well in his journey. I really do. But I would be more impressed if it came with fewer press releases.

I think for me, I didn't have any negative reactions when he came out as gay, and I was supportive when he came out saying that he felt God was telling him to date and all that.  Where it broke down for me was when the church went--for him--from true doctrine to something harmful and the only difference seems to be the church not condoning his same sex relationships.

Because that seems to be saying that he would still believe it was all true and he would still be all in, if they had just said he could date men.  

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think for me, I didn't have any negative reactions when he came out as gay, and I was supportive when he came out saying that he felt God was telling him to date and all that.  Where it broke down for me was when the church went--for him--from true doctrine to something harmful and the only difference seems to be the church not condoning his same sex relationships.

Because that seems to be saying that he would still believe it was all true and he would still be all in, if they had just said he could date men.  

That seems awfully reductive. I didn't read it that way at all. I just see a man who has tried with all his heart to make something work and finally has realized that it won't work and that it might even destroy him. I can't fault him for coming to that conclusion. 

[MustardSeed]

I feel absolute compassion for his journey.  Faith is a complicated journey for most people at some point IMO. I’m not in his shoes.  Godspeed and may he find peace. 

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I feel absolute compassion for his journey.  Faith is a complicated journey for most people at some point IMO. I’m not in his shoes.  Godspeed and may he find peace. 

I have a gay family member who is 40 and active in the church. He is quite open about how lonely and unhappy he is, but he has faith and stays celibate and has no friends. Sometimes I want to just shake him and tell him to get the heck out of there and live a happy life, but it's not my place. I respect his choices, even though I think he is suffering needlessly.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That seems awfully reductive. I didn't read it that way at all. I just see a man who has tried with all his heart to make something work and finally has realized that it won't work and that it might even destroy him. I can't fault him for coming to that conclusion. 

I don’t fault him for his conclusions, but I struggle to understand them.  And if he’s comfortable putting them out in public to be considered, then I’m going to consider them.

In this article they’ve been presented (and I acknowledge the article might not be presenting things accurately) as hinging on church leaders’ disagreement with his views on gay and lesbian relationships.

That seems to imply that without the disagreement, his beliefs wouldn’t have changed.

I could be completely wrong on that conclusion but it’s what I’ve been given to work with in understanding where he’s coming from.  And as far as this topic has been presented for discussion, it seems like a relevant thing to discuss. 

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t fault him for his conclusions, but I struggle to understand them.  And if he’s comfortable putting them out in public to be considered, then I’m going to consider them.

In this article they’ve been presented (and I acknowledge the article might not be presenting things accurately) as hinging on church leaders’ disagreement with his views on gay and lesbian relationships.

That seems to imply that without the disagreement, his beliefs wouldn’t have changed.

I could be completely wrong on that conclusion but it’s what I’ve been given to work with in understanding where he’s coming from.  And as far as this topic has been presented for discussion, it seems like a relevant thing to discuss. 

Maybe it’s just that it was a catalyst. I can’t answer for him, but it is quite common for people to ask themselves, “If the church is wrong about this, what else is it wrong about?” It may well be that coming to believe the church is wrong about homosexuality led him to further questioning. Who knows?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe it’s just that it was a catalyst. I can’t answer for him, but it is quite common for people to ask themselves, “If the church is wrong about this, what else is it wrong about?” It may well be that coming to believe the church is wrong about homosexuality led him to further questioning. Who knows?

That could be.  I've heard of people who've come to similar "it can't be wrong about this and right about the other stuff" conclusions. 

If that's the case then the church refusing to accept SS relationships is the best thing that could happen to people with that view.  If the church accepted SS relationships as equal to heterosexual ones, these people would possibly remain members of a false church for their whole lives.  Because if it's wrong about the other stuff then that doesn't change just because it gets SSM right.

It's the people who claim they would remain if only the church changed that one thing that don't have a leg to stand on (from my very often flawed perspective).  Those are the ones that are essentially saying something like "the doctrine of temple marriage (or the BOM, or the law of chastity, or tithing, or prophets, or the WoW, or etc. etc.) is true if the church accepts my views of SS relationships but false if it doesn't".  

I don't see how that is a tenable position.  

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be.  I've heard of people who've come to similar "it can't be wrong about this and right about the other stuff" conclusions. 

If that's the case then the church refusing to accept SS relationships is the best thing that could happen to people with that view.  If the church accepted SS relationships as equal to heterosexual ones, these people would possibly remain members of a false church for their whole lives.  Because if it's wrong about the other stuff then that doesn't change just because it gets SSM right.

It's the people who claim they would remain if only the church changed that one thing that don't have a leg to stand on (from my very often flawed perspective).  Those are the ones that are essentially saying something like "the doctrine of temple marriage (or the BOM, or the law of chastity, or tithing, or prophets, or the WoW, or etc. etc.) is true if the church accepts my views of SS relationships but false if it doesn't".  

I don't see how that is a tenable position.  

I didn’t read his statements that way. Sometimes one issue is what starts the whole shelf collapsing. That’s how it happened to me, anyway. 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t read his statements that way. Sometimes one issue is what starts the whole shelf collapsing. That’s how it happened to me, anyway. 

It think it's ambiguous, but this paragraph below is where I think the article implies that he's stepped away due to them disagreeing with his views on SS relationships.

Once he was able to reconcile his sexuality with his own spirituality, Archuleta began speaking to church leaders about Mormonism's views on the LGBTQ community. The conversations were futile and left him feeling frustrated and exhausted. Today, his relationship with the church is "very complicated," he says.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It think it's ambiguous, but this paragraph below is where I think the article implies that he's stepped away due to them disagreeing with his views on SS relationships.

Once he was able to reconcile his sexuality with his own spirituality, Archuleta began speaking to church leaders about Mormonism's views on the LGBTQ community. The conversations were futile and left him feeling frustrated and exhausted. Today, his relationship with the church is "very complicated," he says.

I think it’s ambiguous. Either way, I’m happy he’s found some peace. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Either way, I’m happy he’s found some peace. 

I hope he has. 

(that sounds snarky but I don't mean it like that. I really do hope he has.  I just mean that I wouldn't be surprised if it's all complicated for him right now, including the peace part).

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I hope he has. 

(that sounds snarky but I don't mean it like that. I really do hope he has.  I just mean that I wouldn't be surprised if it's all complicated for him right now, including the peace part).

It does take time to process. It’s certainly not fun to go through it. For me, what got me through it was my being OK with myself for the first time in my life. Everything else was secondary. Maybe I’m projecting, but I hope it’s the same for him. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

and has no friends.

No friends at all?  This seems something not related to being gay if you don’t mean he has no romance in his life. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

No friends at all?  This seems something not related to being gay if you don’t mean he has no romance in his life. 

No, he’s been counseled not to make male friends, as it might put him into a situation of temptation. So he hangs out mostly with his brother’s family. Like I said, I haven’t given him any advice, as it is none of my business. But it is hard seeing him so lonely and unhappy. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It does take time to process. It’s certainly not fun to go through it. For me, what got me through it was my being OK with myself for the first time in my life. Everything else was secondary. Maybe I’m projecting, but I hope it’s the same for him. 

Could it depend on whether or not the being ok with himself came before he had his faith crisis? 

I haven't been through it and I don't pretend any special knowledge on how it works or feels, but believing that a gospel doctrine is true but having to leave it behind in order to feel ok being yourself sounds like a harder path to peace than being ok with yourself and then deciding that a gospel doctrine isn't true.

[Emily]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

He is quite open about how lonely and unhappy he is, but he has faith and stays celibate and has no friends.

Why doesn't he have any friends? I am aware of at least three men who are gay (friends of my children, a relative through marriage) who remain in the church and live celibate lifestyles, but they are very active socially. They hang out with relatives at all family get togethers, hold church positions, participate in ward service projects and social gatherings and are well liked by the members of their wards. I imagine they are terribly lonely at times, but so are many other single members, including the straight ones. Many married members are very lonely as well -- partners with poor health or mental problems make their spouse an unreliable source of emotional support. But it doesn't cause them to be completely friendless, unhappy or lonely all the time. 

[Emily]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

think it’s ambiguous. Either way, I’m happy he’s found some peace. 

It doesn't sound like he's found peace. It sounds like he's given up looking for peace within the Church (because he's simply not willing to accept the law of chastity as it has been explained to him) and is going to try looking for peace out of the Church. Not quite the same thing. He doesn't sound either peaceful or happy at this point.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Emily said:

It doesn't sound like he's found peace. It sounds like he's given up looking for peace within the Church (because he's simply not willing to accept the law of chastity as it has been explained to him) and is going to try looking for peace out of the Church. Not quite the same thing. He doesn't sound either peaceful or happy at this point.

 

Acceptance of your own sexuality after a long period of refusing to accept it probably looks like a dumpster fire from the outside. I know my life probably did. Acceptance led to a lot of questioning and deconstructing and I probably looked directionless and confused but it was a more peaceful confusion than before. I also felt less obligated to put a good face on my life.