David Archuleta's new single about he and (some in?) his family leaving the Faith

[Daniel2]

This morning, Jaxon Washburn, a self-proclaimed active and believing Latter-day Saint member of Mormons Building Bridges, posted the following on social media regarding David Archuleta's new single, "Hell Together."  This may be the most high-profile, public case of an LDS family choosing one of their own over their Faith...  The verses are written from David's own point of view, with the chorus being the words of someone within his family (the lyrics are unclear who or how many share the sentiment it expresses, but Washburn indicate the sentiments are from his mother).

 

It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, his song has within LDS circles.  Personally, it brought me to tears and really affected me, as did Jaxon's written response (below).  Both Joseph Smith's and Elder Holland's words about heaven not being heaven without those we love especially hit home, and I found myself surprised to being in agreement with them both. I am sure others' mileage will vary.

 

Quote

 

This morning, former American Idol star and celebrated singer, David Archuleta, released a single titled “Hell Together” which reflects on his journey out of his previous Latter-day Saint faith. The lyrics especially capture a sense of gratitude for his mother’s unwavering support for him, following years of tension and difficulty in reconciling his sexual orientation, religious convictions, and sense of belonging.

 

Tenderly, confidently, yet provocatively, the [lyrics read]:

 

Quote

Bow your head, don't be bold
You'll survive by doin' what you're told.
Said, 'love is earned and we can't choose,'
But the more you grow, you know the truth.

All I want is to make you proud.
If I would run, would I let you down?
You said,

"If I have to live without you
I don't wanna live forever 
in someone else's heaven.
So let 'em close the gates-
Oh, if they don't like the way you're made, 
then they're not any better.
If Paradise is pressurе, oh
we'll go to hell togethеr."

You and me, that's all we need.
Blood is thicker than the pages that they read.
I'm afraid (I'm afraid) of letting go
Of the version of me that I used to know.

Crying tears in Sunday crowds
Took my hand, and we walked out
You said,

"If I have to live without you
I don't wanna live forever
In someone else's heaven.
So let 'em close the gates-
Oh, if they don't like the way you're made
Then they're not any better.
If Paradise is pressure, oh
we'll go to hell together.”

Hallelujah
What's it doing for ya when it’s in the way? 
Hallelujah
Wish we knew it sooner.

Walking out with grace
You said,

"If I have to live without you
I don't wanna live forever
In someone else's heaven.
So let 'em close the gates-
If they don't like the way you're made
then they're not any better.
If Paradise is pressure, oh
we'll go to hell together."
 

Both the lyrics, title, and his public reflections on his newfound identity as an ex-Mormon have prompted a range of reactions across the Mormon spectrum, spanning from celebration, encouragement, and solidarity to offense, outrage, and pointed personal criticism. Many comments coming from Latter-day Saints communicate a sense of betrayal, anger, or disappointment against what are perceived as attacks or critiques— both subtle and explicit — towards the LDS faith.

 

David is not the first high-profile musician or celebrity to go public with his Mormon faith transition. Previous years saw Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons, Tyler Glenn of Neon Trees, and others have done the same, often centered around the experiences of marginalized identity groups—such as the LGBT+ community—and Mormonism. In all of these cases, their statements, released media projects, and public reception elicit similar juxtaposed clashes of celebration and condemnation among former and current Mormons.

 

Focusing specifically on David’s lyrics here, I found myself very much moved by the sincere emotional resonance of his music, while also discomforted by the religious paradigm of a sad, exclusionary heaven which he, and far too many others, experience harm from and ultimately reject. Though some may read his sentiments as heretical, in my opinion, they deeply reflect emotional, social, and theological themes native to the Mormon tradition. In singing about his preference to “go to hell together” with his family, David pays homage to his Mormon roots just as he powerfully subverts certain conceptions of the afterlife within the faith.

 

The basic thrust of this conviction—that heaven cannot be so if we end up separated from those we love—is a thoroughly Mormon one with its roots in the faith’s earliest days. My mind immediately thought of Joseph Smith’s own feelings when he mused “let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society. What do we care where we are if the society be good?” [1]

 

Mormonism’s obsession with a lively, populated, and universal afterlife runs deep, attested by the scale and scope of its commitment to vicarious temple work on behalf of the deceased. Additionally, the tradition is so bold as to inherently ground the very being of Deity in social community, with families being sealed, exalted, and brought into perfect sacred unity with Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The Latter-day Saint Godhead is characterized not by the unity of multiple persons within a single God, but plural distinct beings perfectly unified in divine relationship.

 

Moving into modernity, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland similarly confesses that “I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me.”

 

Rather than an anthem of now-unrestrained hedonistic apostasy, what I personally find in David’s single is a deep-seated Mormon ethic which I have likewise espoused since my teenage years. First instilled from my mother’s transition out of Mormonism, I cannot help but find myself entirely and unapologetically disinterested in any semblance of the eternities which lack the continued presence of my family members and friends. Just as readily as I would dismiss notions of eternal conscious torment or predestination reflected in certain other Christian theologies, I would and do dismiss any notion of a Mormon “sad heaven” in which temple ordinances, sealing power, or the power of God as expressed through the priesthood become a means of separation, depression, and anxiety as opposed to assured union, hope, and ultimate comfort.

 

My desire to support the agency of former members of my Church in their religious agency, individual journeys, and search for healing is not motivated despite my Mormon faith but expressly because of it. I am not always comfortable or in agreement with those who leave, especially including certain particularly venomous personalities (which, in fairness, might also be said of some of my fellow co-religionists.) I’ve received my share of wounds and unwarranted personal attacks on the basis of being and remaining an informed, educated, engaged, and believing Mormon/Latter-day Saint. There’s an understandable impulse to feel defensiveness, if not hurt or anger, when your sacred values feel under attack. I’m prone to experiencing as much in wading through these sometimes agitated waters of faith, identity, and belonging. None of those negative moments however trump the incredibly rewarding, growth-inducing, and love-saturated relationships I have with ex-Mormons, friends and family alike.

 

Though they share a common spiritual mother tongue, Latter-day Saints and ex-Mormons engage the tradition from different frames and thus, my comments are meant to reflect and speak to those who share my faith. I’ve found over the years that olive branches, open arms of friendship, forgiveness, charity, and even friendly discussion and disagreement will always be better and go further than muskets, stones, and contention ever will. “Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism,” continues Joseph Smith, “to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease, and men to become friends and brothers.”

 

Rather than viewing former members first as adversaries or antagonists, I hope to never lose sight of the common humanity and seeds of divinity we possess in striving for truth, purpose, community, and fulfillment. When Christian love and empathy are the foundation, I am convinced that there are no enemies to be had; only friends and friends-to-be remain.

 

[1] History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], p. 1680, The Joseph Smith Papers.

 

 

Edited March 29 by Daniel2

[Pyreaux]

I haven't actually been paying attention to David Archuleta. What, he's gay? and left the church? and now singing about it? I wonder if there were any early signs...

Edited March 29 by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The basic thrust of this conviction—that heaven cannot be so if we end up separated from those we love—is a thoroughly Mormon one with its roots in the faith’s earliest days.

 

35 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Moving into modernity, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland similarly confesses that “I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me.”

These exactly. It’s a very Mormon song. 

[Daniel2]

17 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I haven't actually been paying attention to David Archuleta. What, he's gay? and left the church? and now singing about it? I wonder if there were any early signs...

Indeed, he is, he has, and he is...

David Archuleta Steps Back from Mormon Church After Coming Out Queer (people.com)

 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

This morning, Jaxon Washburn, a self-proclaimed active and believing Latter-day Saint member of Mormons Building Bridges, posted the following on social media regarding David Archuleta's new single, "Hell Together."  This may be the most high-profile, public case of an LDS family choosing one of their own over their Faith...  The verses are written from David's own point of view, with the chorus being the words of someone within his family (it's unclear who or how many share the sentiment it expresses).

 

It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, his song has within LDS circles.  Personally, it brought me to tears and really affected me, as did Jaxon's written response (below).  Both Joseph Smith's and Elder Holland's words about heaven not being heaven without those we love especially hit home, and I found myself surprised to being in agreement with them both. I am sure others' mileage will vary.

 

 

His lyrics painful lyrics perfectly describe what happens when former believers surrender to the fallen nature, give up on Christ, and lose the Spirit. 

Edited March 29 by teddyaware

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The basic thrust of this conviction—that heaven cannot be so if we end up separated from those we love—is a thoroughly Mormon one with its roots in the faith’s earliest days.

Moving into modernity, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland similarly confesses that “I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me.”

These exactly. It’s a very Mormon song. 

I don't think Elder Holland's comment is particularly comparable to David's.  Elder Holland is not rejecting or rebelling against the Restored Gospel, David is. 

I wish David well.  The Restored Gospel is, in the end, only compelling and meaningful for those who accept it on the Lord's, rather than the individual's, terms.  We see this in the story of the Rich Young Man:

Quote

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Elder John M. Madsen applied this story in this 2002 General Conference talk:

Quote

Almost 2,000 years ago, a rich young man asked an extremely important question of the Savior: “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Matt. 19:16).

Having “heard” the Savior’s instructions and His gentle invitation to “come and follow me” (Matt. 19:21), the rich young man “went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions” (Matt. 19:22).

Tragically, millions in the world today still prize and choose “the riches of the earth” over the “riches of eternity” (D&C 38:39), not knowing or fully understanding that “he that hath eternal life is rich” (D&C 6:7; emphasis added), and that eternal life is God’s greatest gift to man (see D&C 14:7). Simply stated, eternal life is to live forever as families in the presence of God (see D&C 132:19–20, 24, 55).

As I see it, the rhetorical conceit David uses in his lyrics fundamentally distorts and misrepresents the Restored Gospel.  That conceit is that we believe that the "gates {of heaven}" have been wrongfully or arbitrarily "close{d}" to those who choose to not obey the commandments of Jesus Christ.  And the lyrics seem to imply that the leaders of the Church, not God, have "close{d} the gates" ("So let 'em close the gates / Oh, if they don't like the way you're made, / then they're not any better").  The commandments have come through prophets and apostles, but do not originate with them.

I note the lyric's inclusion of modern notions sexual identity.  "Oh, if they don't like the way you're made..."  The Church acknowledges same-sex attraction, but then requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  The Church likewise acknowledges opposite-sex attraction, and also requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  "{The Lord} doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness..." (2 Nephi 26:33.)  This is a genuinely universal declaration, and necessarily applies to our brothers and sisters who identify as LGBT.

So that brings us back to "identity."  Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time:

Here:

Quote

Quote

But seriously, what on earth does Elder Bednar mean when he says, "There are no homosexuals in the Church"?

I think this has been explained several times already in this thread, but since it would appear that you still haven't grasped it, let me try to break it down for you from my perspective as both a professional historian and faithful Latter-day Saint:

1. Sexual identity is a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century. Before that, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities. Same-sex behaviour, of course, has been ubiquitous. In addition to all the quotes from queer and queer-friendly historians that I have provided on this forum in the past, let me add a few more here:

• 'Modern sexuality moved from a situation where same-sex activity was merely excessive sex (sexual acts) to a regime where sexuality was linked to self (sexual identities). It was a shift that also saw the division into heterosexual and homosexual, a split that has been assumed in modern sexual paradigms' (Barry Reay, 'Writing the modern histories of homosexual England', Historical Journal, 52:1 [2009], 213.)
• 'Many historians of sexuality have argued that a hetero/homosexual binarism emerged only after 1869 following the coinage of "homosexuality", which, according to Foucault, introduced the homosexual as a new "species" of being. Some interpretations of Foucault's work had emphasized the precise moment when the "homosexual" created a radical rupture in western understandings of sexual deviancy. According to this view, the social and cultural identities based on an exclusive same sex-erotic attraction were virtually impossible before the nineteenth century' (Robert Beachy, 'The German invention of homosexuality', Journal of Modern History, 82:4 [2010], 802-03).
• 'Other gay historians have supported Foucault's periodization but questioned his exclusive emphasis on medicalization ... Dan Healey's work on Moscow and St. Petersburg documents a shift in same-sex relations around 1900 from an earlier model of adult men patronizing both younger male and female prostitutes to a subculture of men who desired exclusively other men' (ibid., 803).
• 'A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup. Homosexuality has thus been defined and constructed around the debate over the innate character of sexual identity, whether governed by nature or nurture, biology or culture, genetics or environment' (ibid., 803-04).
• 'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history. The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation' (ibid., 804).

2. This new social construct spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility. In many ways, one can read the wholesale invention of 'gay marriage' and the current legal and social attempts to silence all dissent to it as the clearest indication that the discourse has gone from merely ascendant to genuinely hegemonic.

3. In their quest for normalisation and domestication, all ascendant discourses attempt to mask their genealogies by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed. These enabling narratives become essential to propping up a hegemonic discourse and inevitably result in historical revisionism, wherein the new discourse is projected backward onto histories that predate it (a point perfectly expressed in Orwell's 1984: 'The past was alterable ... Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'):

• 'But the conceptual quandary is deeper (and relates to the distinction between sexual acts and identities referred to in the opening sentence of this article). The difficulty starts, quite literally, with the titles of these two historical surveys. The lesbian of the 'lesbian' history does not appear until chapter 7. The gay in the 'gay' history (as indeed its authors point out) is not applicable until the book's closing pages ... The danger of writing general homosexual histories is that the very nature of the exercise, the act of naming in the book's title -- "A gay history", "A lesbian history" -- imposes modern meanings and interpretations' (Reay, 'Writing the modern histories', 215).

4. Under the direction of the prophets, the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities. Consequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity.

5. The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those, like you, who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity -- but it is a position far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination. It also is in harmony with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic.

6. Fortuitously, the Church's position also happens to be a defence of revealed truth relating to these issues. 

And here:

Quote

1) I do not, nor have I ever, identified with any late 19th-century Western social construct of sexuality, hetero-, homo-, bi-, or otherwise.

2) One of my former housemates now lives in a city where several of his friends have 'come out' as non-heterosexual specifically because doing so makes unchastity more socially acceptable, apparently. My friend even said to me that he was thinking about it as well since then, when he breaks the Law of Chastity (as he has done on many occasions), people will look on him with pity and compassion instead of judgement.

3) Clearly we are dealing with a cultural phenomenon.

4) If we teach these youth and young adults the truth -- historically, anthropologically, and linguistically grounded -- they'll be fine since it meshes perfectly with our doctrines.

And here:

Quote

Quote

What are you saying? Homosexuality is a modern invention within the past 150 years? I must be misunderstanding you. Could you please clarify.

Nope, no misunderstanding. The notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge.

If you're genuinely interested, a more academic introduction can be found in 'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation':
...
I'm a historian by profession and work in a research school with other historians, anthropologists, and linguists. I'm not aware of a single one who would contest the reality that 'sexual orientation' is a recent construct with a knowable history or that it is a specifically Western construct that has spread into our part of the world only because of Western colonialism (including the entertainment industry's colonising of the imagination).

And here:

Quote

Quote

Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

I'm not certain, but I think you're asking if the Church should stop teaching basic Christian sexual mores, and my answer to that question (if I'm correct) is no. But as a member of the Church who has never married anyone of any sex, I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive. Please stop pretending you get to speak for me.

It is, for me, sad and unfortunate that David has chosen the "sexual identity" paradigm in ways that, for him, require the exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel.  I think this sort of dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary.  Hamba is quite right: "The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those {} who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

I hope David has a change of heart, but meanwhile, I wish him well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 29 by smac97

[Daniel2]

17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

His lyrics painful lyrics perfectly describe what happens when former believers surrender to the fallen nature, give up on Christ, and lose the Spirit. 

We are each entirely entitled to our own beliefs which will understandably color how we respond to the song. While your reaction isn’t surprising, it’s interesting that you feel that a mother’s love for and to be with her son is a “surrendering to the fallen nature,” especially since Smith and Holland shared similar, albeit not identical, feelings/beliefs.

In reading the linked article on Archuleta’s faith transition and ongoing conversations with God, I’m not sure he (and likely his mother) feel they have “given up Christ.” As has often been said, the institutional Church is not the same as God/Christ, and many former members continue to have rich spiritual/religious lives and relationships with God/Christ outside the LDS Faith.

Edited March 29 by Daniel2

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

His lyrics painful lyrics perfectly describe what happens when former believers surrender to the fallen nature, give up on Christ, and lose the Spirit. 

Actually, it sounds like the lyrics of someone freed from a cult. 

Quote

Bow your head, don't be bold
You'll survive by doin' what you're told.
Said, 'love is earned and we can't choose,'
But the more you grow, you know the truth.

Quote

Hallelujah
What's it doing for ya when it’s in the way? 
Hallelujah
Wish we knew it sooner.

I like this line:

Quote

If they don't like the way you're made
then they're not any better.

 

[The Nehor]

Oh good, the sexual identity is a social construct thing again. I especially like the part where people start identifying as queer because somehow it makes cheating acceptable whereas in the hetero community it is looked down on. Yes, the oh so privileged queer community that everyone wants to join because they think it lets them cheat. What a stupid mirage. When people want to do this they “come out” as poly not queer and the poly people roast them for it.

Interesting that all your sources for this brilliant take on sexual identity come from this board. Can’t find anything as useful anywhere else? Too much nuance when you go to professional sources?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is, for me, sad and unfortunate that David has chosen the "sexual identity" paradigm in ways that, for him, require the exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel.  I think this is dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary.  Hamba is quite right: "The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those {} who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

No. Wrong. False. Ridiculous. Bad. Ill-conceived. Incorrect. Fantasy.

You have no first-hand knowledge of this. Don’t you think that virtually every devoted LDS queer person tries this? They try it a lot and they try hard. You didn’t discover one weird trick that everyone is ignoring. You’re talking about a painful journey many have walked and suggesting that if they had just tried harder to be closeted and pretended their identity isn’t real then all the angst and confusion would be gone or become insignificant. That doesn’t happen. A few find such a path but they rarely last. Most of the openly queer people who are held up as standards of this path end up ‘falling’.

Also finding my identity was a HUGE relief. My identity wasn’t mainstream when I was coming to grips with it. I was was left questioning ‘WHAT THE HELL AM I?’ Finding a name for what you are and the stories of those in similar situations is a relief. It is not making up an identity out of convenience or some kind of perversity. It is making sense of the world. Telling people they were better off in the angst and confusion of being alone because God wants that isn’t putting God in a good light. 

Stop mindlessly opining on cures that just don’t work. This is one reason queer people often grow to resent or even hate the church. They hear advice like this and try it and when it fails they are told they should have tried it. It is a mockery of their suffering and an insult to what many have endured. Then comes the resentment of the time lost trying to follow this path.

Could you try reading the stories of the people who endure the stuff you are dismissing instead of making up fantasy stories in your own head about how it works?

Edited March 29 by The Nehor

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I note the lyric's inclusion of modern notions sexual identity.  "Oh, if they don't like the way you're made..."  The Church acknowledges same-sex attraction, but then requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  The Church likewise acknowledges opposite-sex attraction, and also requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  "{The Lord} doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness..." (2 Nephi 26:33.)  This is a genuinely universal declaration, and necessarily applies to our brothers and sisters who identify as LGBT.

Modern notions of sexual identity?  What generation did you grow up in?

I am grateful for "modern notions" of sexual identity, and celebrate the demise of of these notions from 2010 (not that long ago):

Quote

 "some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our father."

President Packer

All the years of aversion therapy and trying to pray the gay away, and encouraging gay people to marry the opposite sex - all of that rejection of who they are - thank God we are past that!  

Oh wait, no we are not:

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/david-archuleta-releases-new-song-hell-mom/story?id=108628896

In this video, Archuleta states that before deciding to leave the church he met with an apostle who told him 3 times in their conversation, "we just need to find you a good girl."  Archuletta responded, "that's not the solution."  Good for him!  He decided to leave the church after that.   I can't believe this kind of crap is still being pushed on gay people.  I thought we were past this?  Apparently not.  Sad.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

Just "set aside your identity", or at least "subordinate" it?  Why?  That's not shaming at all!   Is it so shameful that it needs to be set aside?  Is it any wonder why gay people have a hard time surviving in this church?    

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually, it sounds like the lyrics of someone freed from a cult. 

"{L}ove is earned and we can't choose" is a markedly unfair, even dishonest, characterization of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Another mischaracterization of us is "cult" when used for its pejorative connotations, which it carries because it is often associated with groups or movements that exhibit extreme or unorthodox beliefs, practices, or behaviors.  The Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "extreme" in their practices or behaviors.  We can, depending on the context, be characterized as "unorthodox," but such a characterization hinges on what is considered "orthodox," and that is a moving target.

Groups derisively labeled as "cults" are often seen as deviating from mainstream norms or established religious or social practices.  Again, this characterization only works in the context of what is considered "mainstream."  Muslims pray five times a day, but few conversant people label their religion as a "cult."  

Additionally, "cult" can imply manipulation, coercion, or exploitation of its members by charismatic leaders.  This is, I think, one of the more frequently-intended connotation.  I don't think it's fair, though.  The Brethren aren't really fairly characterized as "charismatic leaders."  Substantial numbers of Latter-day Saints leave or drift into inactivity, and even open opposition, and do so with impunity.  The Church has self-imposed constraints on the authority it can exercise over its members (see D&C 134:10).

The negative perception of cults has been reinforced by media portrayals of high-profile cases involving destructive cults, which often emphasize the harmful or dangerous aspects of such groups. As a result, the term "cult" has become loaded with negative implications, leading to its pejorative meaning in common usage.  This too is a frequently-intended meaning/connotation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

{L}ove is earned and we can't choose" is a markedly unfair, even dishonest, characterization of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The guy spent his life as a member of your church. He is entitled to his experience of it.

To quote your leader:

Quote

Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these: “Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …”; or “Since ‘God is love, He will love me unconditionally, regardless …” These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception.

 

[juliann]

As I said previously, if the church manages to lose someone as stalwart and supportive as Archuleta was, it is time to rethink what they are doing. I am very grateful my child isn't gay because I could not encourage them to stay in a community that expects them to lead a loveless life. This has nothing whatsoever to do with chastity because even marriage isn't an option. So pretending the rules are the same for hetero and homo are beyond disengenuous. 

I just hope he doesn't fall into the exmo angry rabbit hole by misrepresenting our theology. I am disgusted by any LDS who would criticize him because he left an unaccepting church. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope David has a change of heart, but meanwhile, I wish him well.

Maybe it is you and how are you putting it lately, you and yours or those of your ilk, that need the change of heart.

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

As I said previously, if the church manages to lose someone as stalwart and supportive as Archuleta was, it is time to rethink what they are doing. I am very grateful my child isn't gay because I could not encourage them to stay in a community that expects them to lead a loveless life. This has nothing whatsoever to do with chastity because even marriage isn't an option. So pretending the rules are the same for hetero and homo are beyond disengenuous. 

I just hope he doesn't fall into the exmo angry rabbit hole by misrepresenting our theology. I am disgusted by any LDS who would criticize him because he left an unaccepting church. 

Wow! I agree with your comments 100%!  Should we note this as a day to go down in history?  Just kidding really.   😉  But I do appreciate your remarks. 

[Daniel2]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"{L}ove is earned and we can't choose" is a markedly unfair, even dishonest, characterization of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I anticipated someone would eventually criticize Archuleta’s lyrics for “unfairly not being an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine/beliefs/practices,” or at the very least being an “incomplete view of LDS doctrine/beliefs/practices.”

In addition to SeekingUnderstanding’s excellent point that Archuleta is entitled to his own experience of Mormonism, it’s worth pointing out that lyrics often use poetic wording that, while still reflective of the larger truth, may not reflect every detail or specific nuance with which some members of the church may be quick to take umbrage.

As I said previously, as a post-Mormon man happily married to my husband, his words absolutely resonated with me and reflect much of my own experience in the Faith, as well.

Edited March 29 by Daniel2

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

It is, for me, sad and unfortunate that David has chosen the "sexual identity" paradigm in ways that, for him, require the exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel.  I think this is dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary.  Hamba is quite right: "The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those {} who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

No. Wrong. False. Ridiculous. Bad. Ill-conceived. Incorrect. Fantasy.

Yes.  Right.  True.  Reasonable.  Good.  Well-conceived.  Correct.  Reality.

 

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You have no first-hand knowledge of this.

You don't know this.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, then much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.

Don’t you think that virtually every devoted LDS queer person tries this?

I can't speak for "every devoted LDS queer person."  However, I have a good friend who previously "identified" as a lesbian, but she chose to set aside or subordinate that identity.  I have another friend, now deceased, who was quite emphatic in his choice to reject the "identity" paradigm.  Before he passed he expressed regret, even some frustration, that he had bought into it for so much of his life.  He acknowledged his past sexual attraction to other men, but he rejected it as his "identity."  He said it (sexual attraction) was something he experienced, but not who he was, not his "identity."

I have another friend who is, I think, "tr{ying} this" to some extent.  He is fairly open about being sexually attracted to men, but I'm not sure that he specifically "identifies" as gay (or, given that he's married to a woman, "bisexual").  In any event, he subordinates that orientation / identity.  He is an active and observant Latter-day Saint.  Then there are online anecdotes, but I can't personally vouch for these.

In any event, to more directly answer your question, no I don't know that "virtually every devoted LDS queer person tries this."  I think the "sexual identity" paradigm has become very firmly entrenched in modern society, so much so that it is not even questioned.  By way of example, look at this compilation of quotes from Hamba, which are often responsive to people who seem to be shocked at the very notion that "sexual identity" is, historically speaking, a novelty.  Or as Hamba has (with documentation) put it:

• "a late 19th-century Western social construct,"
• "'a hetero/homosexual binarism emerged only after 1869 following the coinage of "homosexuality", which, according to Foucault, introduced the homosexual as a new 'species' of being,'"
• "'the social and cultural identities based on an exclusive same sex-erotic attraction were virtually impossible before the nineteenth century,'"
• "A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup"
• "'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history'"
• "'The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation'"
• "This new social construct spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility."
• "'Before that point [the late 1860s], Western culture did not include the concept we now call "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity"'"
• "Clearly we are dealing with a cultural phenomenon."

I think most people, including most Latter-day Saints, take "sexual identity" as a given, as something that has always existed, not as a novelty with "a very recent history," as a "new social construct" which "emerged only after 1869," which sexual identities "were virtually impossible before the nineteenth century," which was "adopted {in the second halve of the 20th century} for its political utility."

However, if and when "sexual identity" is revisited, and then set aside or subordinated, then much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  How often is this revisiting and re-evaluation of "identity" happening amongst the Latter-day Saints?  I don't really know.  I suspect you don't know either.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They try it a lot and they try hard.

"It" here refers to what?

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You didn’t discover one weird trick that everyone is ignoring.

Mischaracterization.  I haven't claimed to "discovery" anything, nor is it a "trick."  And it's not that folks are "ignoring" the recent vintage of "sexual identity."  Rather, I think they aren't aware of it.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You’re talking about a painful journey many have walked and suggesting that if they had just tried harder to be closeted and pretended their identity isn’t real then all the angst and confusion would be gone or become insignificant.

You are misunderstanding or misconstruing my point.  You are presuming that "sexual identity" is a given.  I am suggesting that it is not, and that it is instead an innovation of fairly recent mintage.  I am not denying the reality that some people are sexually attracted to those of their same sex.  I am, instead, noting that that this condition is not, or need not be treated as, an "identity."

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also finding my identity was a HUGE relief. My identity wasn’t mainstream when I was coming to grips with it. I was was left questioning ‘WHAT THE HELL AM I?’

A child of God.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Finding a name for what you are and the stories of those in similar situations is a relief.

The "name" you reference here is, historically speaking, a brand new concept.  That it has attained some cultural hegemony does not mean it is etched in stone.  If a person can choose to take the "name" as an "identity," he can also choose to not do so, or to subordinate that "name" or "identity" to one that is, or ought to be, more foundational.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not making up an identity out of convenience or some kind of perversity.

Mischaracterization.  I have not suggested this.  See the various sources cited by Hamba (complied here).

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is making sense of the world. Telling people they were better off in the angst and confusion of being alone because God wants that isn’t putting God in a good light. 

Mischaracterization.  I have not done this.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Stop mindlessly opining on cures that just don’t work.

I decline to go along with your attempt at censorship.  

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is one reason queer people often grow to church. They hear advice like this and try it and when it fails they are told they should have tried it. It is a mockery of their suffering and an insult to what many have endured. Then comes the resentment of the time lost trying to follow this path.

Mischaracterization.  I have not mocked anyone, nor their suffering.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Could you try reading the stories of the people who endure the stuff you are dismissing instead of making up fantasy stories in your own head about how it works?

Mischaracterization.  I have not dismissed anyone, nor am I making up fantasy stories.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You don't know this.

Have you experienced same sex attraction?  To the point you need to actively control them in your view? Where you felt loss when you chose to suppress those feelings?

Watching what someone else goes through isn’t firsthand, even if close to someone. That would be like me claiming to know what the pain of a broken leg is like because I saw my brother hopping home after wrecking out on his skate board. 
 

I agree with Hamba on the identity as a social construct, but it is just another way to communicate about one’s feelings, it does not somehow alter those feelings into something fundamentally different even if it may alter perception.  There can be some influence based on perception, but it’s not the cure all you seem to think it is imo. 
 

Social constructs succeed when they work to illuminate experiences. The success of sexual identities suggest they illuminate more than they obscure. Dismissing them as imposed as if that will alter the emotional experiences that they label is unrealistic and foolish imo. 

Edited March 29 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Quote

"{L}ove is earned and we can't choose" is a markedly unfair, even dishonest, characterization of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I anticipated someone would eventually criticize Archuleta’s lyrics for “unfairly not being an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine/beliefs/practices,” or at the very least being an “incomplete view of LDS doctrine/beliefs/practices.”

It's a reasonable anticipation.

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In addition to SeekingUnderstanding’s excellent point that Archuleta is entitled to his own experience of Mormonism,

Daniel Patrick Moynihan had it right: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

David is entitled to "his own experience," but he is not entitled to unfairly or dishonestly characterized the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

it’s worth pointing out that lyrics often use poetic wording that, while still reflective of the larger truth, may not reflect every detail or specific nuance with which some members of the church may be quick to take umbrage.

Lyrics can also be plainly unfair and dishonest and inaccurate.  Such as we've seen here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"{L}ove is earned and we can't choose" is a markedly unfair, even dishonest, characterization of the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Another mischaracterization of us is "cult" when used for its pejorative connotations, which it carries because it is often associated with groups or movements that exhibit extreme or unorthodox beliefs, practices, or behaviors.  The Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "extreme" in their practices or behaviors.  We can, depending on the context, be characterized as "unorthodox," but such a characterization hinges on what is considered "orthodox," and that is a moving target.

Groups derisively labeled as "cults" are often seen as deviating from mainstream norms or established religious or social practices.  Again, this characterization only works in the context of what is considered "mainstream."  Muslims pray five times a day, but few conversant people label their religion as a "cult."  

Additionally, "cult" can imply manipulation, coercion, or exploitation of its members by charismatic leaders.  This is, I think, one of the more frequently-intended connotation.  I don't think it's fair, though.  The Brethren aren't really fairly characterized as "charismatic leaders."  Substantial numbers of Latter-day Saints leave or drift into inactivity, and even open opposition, and do so with impunity.  The Church has self-imposed constraints on the authority it can exercise over its members (see D&C 134:10).

The negative perception of cults has been reinforced by media portrayals of high-profile cases involving destructive cults, which often emphasize the harmful or dangerous aspects of such groups. As a result, the term "cult" has become loaded with negative implications, leading to its pejorative meaning in common usage.  This too is a frequently-intended meaning/connotation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wait, you are going to start fact-checking song lyrics? Have you read a hymnal lately? Glass houses and all that.

And the Church is not extreme? Remember when we were behind one of the “twin relics of barbarism”?  Remember when the mobs drove out our ancestors and the US army followed after?

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just "set aside your identity",

Not quite.  Set aside sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity."  Do you see the difference?

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

or at least "subordinate" it? 

Not quite.  If the individual is not ready to set aside the concept of sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity," then subordinate it to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God.  

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why? 

Because adopting sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity" tends to lead to sinful behavior, or justifications for sinful behavior.  Conversely, setting aside sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity," or else subordinating it, allows a person room to choose to obey God, and to make that choice free from (or with reduced measures of) the angst and confusion and conflict arising out of the conflict between worldly notions of sexuality and those espoused in the Restored Gospel.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's not shaming at all! 

No, it's not.  A man who is sexually attracted to women, but who nevertheless chooses to constrain his behavior to that which is prescribed by God, has not been, and need not be, "shamed" into doing so.

In raw numbers, there are far more instances of church members violating the Law of Chastity's proscriptions as to opposite-sex behavior.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it so shameful that it needs to be set aside?

I said nothing about "shame."  Nor do I agree with the sentiment.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it any wonder why gay people have a hard time surviving in this church?    

I think a big part of the difficulty is the notion that sexual attraction/orientation is an "identity" or species of people.  This is, historically speaking, a novelty, and one that can and should be set aside.  Short of that, it should be subordinated to the "identity" we each have as children of a common Heavenly Father.  If that "identity" is paramount, then the individual can choose to constrain his sexual expressions and behaviors to the confines of the Law of Chastity.  This is the choice we all must make, regarding of whether our sexual proclivities hew toward those of the same sex or the opposite sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, you are going to start fact-checking song lyrics?

I made a passing comment about David misrepresenting the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And the Church is not extreme?

"Extreme" as in "of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average"?  No, it is not.

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Remember when we were behind one of the “twin relics of barbarism”?  Remember when the mobs drove out our ancestors and the US army followed after?

Things can change in 130+ years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not quite.  If the individual is not ready to set aside the concept of sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity," then subordinate it to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God.  

Setting aside the concepts outlined in The Family Proclamation seems rather heretical, from an LDS viewpoint, to me.  Maybe my wandering in the desert of disbelief has scrambled my noggin though.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Elder Holland's comment is particularly comparable to David's.  Elder Holland is not rejecting or rebelling against the Restored Gospel, David is. 

Sometimes I wonder if you are intentionally this obtuse or if you just have an online persona to maintain. Indeed, Elder Holland describing heaven in terms of his closest relationships is something that David could never relate to. 🙄😬. Only Latter-day Saints can feel such things. Keep up the good work!