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

[ZealouslyStriving]

The good thing about our theology: We know that you will live in eternity with those you are comfortable being around. David will have plenty of company wherever he ends up.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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’.

I'm still thinking the Coates/Craney survey needs more attention, where we discover the plausible existence of hundreds of thousands of not-straight saints:

Quote

In the survey, only 4% of current members identified as LGBTQ

I'm still thinking about my own personal experiences with not-straight LDS folk, and how it's a 50/50 split between those who have left, and those who remain.    I'm still thinking about my buddy who is one of these folks, and is the mirror image opposite of everything Nehor tells us about the community.

 

Yeah, I'm thinking "the LGBTQ community" is merely a fraction of the whole.  For every one of 'em, there are N numbers of people who want nothing to do with the community, what it stands for, how it thinks about sexual identity.

 

Ok, when folks stand up and go public and get counted, they seem to align with Nehor's claims.  But there's good reason to believe there are vast numbers of folks with similar inclinations who don't stand up or go public or get counted, who reflect Smac's notions.   Yes, I know one personally.  

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's a reasonable anticipation.

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think it's reasonable to expect David Archuleta's lyrics should expound on every nuance of LDS doctrine.  That's not the point nor purpose of his song.

As someone who's experienced similar experiences as David myself, I can absolutely attest to the truths he sings of in feeling that in the LDS paradigm, love is absolutely perceived as conditional based on living a worthy life (and very much in keeping with what some LDS leaders have taught), and that within Mormonism, "choosing" to live in congruence with one's innate sexual and romantic orientation is not a valid choice (even knowing that Latter-day Saints actually do believe in Agency).

His song is NOT speaking about Church doctrine--it's about his personal experience of being a gay Latter-day Saint who's wrestled with how to balance his faith and inability to marry a woman.  His words certainly resonate as true and reflective of being a gay Latter-day Saint according to my own personal experience. 

The fact that you know others who have chosen to subjugate their ability to find a romantic partner in this life, or who express regret for having done so, is reflective of their own beliefs, lives, and choices. As I said previously, we're all absolutely entitled to our own beliefs.  Their experiences are as valid as they are for themselves as David's are for himself, and neither robs the other of the validity of their own personal experiences. 

I stand by my assertion that David's lyrics absolutely are not unfair, dishonest, and inaccurate.  And I speak from my personal experience in so saying.

Edited March 29, 2024 by Daniel2

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

 

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, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

You have no first-hand knowledge of this.

 

You don't know this.

Have you experienced same sex attraction?  

I decline to publicly respond to this inquiry.

In any event, I was not speaking of "same sex attraction."  I was speaking of setting aside sexual orientation/attraction as an "identity," or else subordinating it.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

Again, was not speaking of "same sex attraction."

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

I respectfully disagree.  I think the claim of "identity" these days is extraordinarily potent.  Indeed, it achieved widespread hegemony in the West because of its political utility.  That utility would not exist if "sexual identity" is "just another way to communicate about one's feelings."

Look at David's lyrics.  The angst and pain here arises from the perceived dilemma wherein he must choose one "identity" at the expense of another.  As I said previously, I think this sort of dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary.  

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Social constructs succeed when they work to illuminate experiences.

Social constructs can also succeed in causing real harm and injury.  

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

The success of sexual identities suggest they illuminate more than they obscure.

The "identity" paradigm also works well in the Latter-day Saint paradigm because it creates a potent alternative view of sexuality relative to the Law of Chastity.  There is often tension between an individual's sexual desires and external constraints on those desires (such as, for example, the Law of Chastity).  The individual can choose to release that tension by elevating those sexual desires to an "identity," and then letting that identity replace the Law of Chastity as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dismissing them as imposed as if that will alter the emotional experiences that they label is unrealistic and foolish imo. 

I've said nothing about "{d}ismissing them as imposed."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

I don't think it's reasonable to expect David Archuleta's lyrics should expound on every nuance of LDS doctrine. 

I said nothing about expecting his lyrics to "expound on every nuance of LDS doctrine."

Just now, Daniel2 said:

That's not the point or purpose of his song.

Understood.  Part of the "point or purpose" is to mischaracterize the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

His song is NOT speaking about Church doctrine

It certainly is.  

"So let 'em close the gates / Oh, if they don't like the way you're made."

"If Paradise is pressurе, oh we'll go to hell togethеr."

These are mischaracterizations of the doctrines and beliefs of the Church.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

--it's about his personal experience of being a gay Latter-day Saint who's wrestled with how to balance his faith and inability to marry a woman. 

He is imputing to the Latter-day Saints things we do not believe.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

His words certainly resonate as true and reflective of being a gay Latter-day Saint according to my own personal experience. 

But they are not accurate characterizations of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

The fact that you know others who have chosen to subjugate their ability to find a romantic partner in this life, or who express regret for having done so, is reflective of their own beliefs, lives, and choices.

I appreciate that you are making room for these folks and their experiences.  

Just now, Daniel2 said:

As I said previously, we're all absolutely entitled to our own beliefs.  Their experiences are as valid as they are for themselves as David's are for himself, and neither robs the other of the validity of their own personal experiences. 

I was not critiquing the lyrics for how they portray David's "personal experiences."  I was critiquing the lyrics to the extent they (mis)characterize the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

I stand by my assertion that David's lyrics absolutely are not unfair, dishonest, and inaccurate. 

I think his lyrics include unfair and inaccurate characterizations of the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Just now, Daniel2 said:

And I speak from my personal experience in so saying.

Okay.

I am speaking as one who is pretty conversant in the doctrines and teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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.

Sometimes I marvel that you can maintain your handle with a straight face.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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!

I did not suggest that "{o}nly Latter-day Saints can feel such things."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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.  

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.

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.

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

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

I don't elevate, cling to, or cherish an "identity as a gay man." I spend little-to-no time thinking about actually being gay, and as I've aged, sex itself has lessened in importance, as I imagine it does with most couples as they enter the latter portion of their lives. 

I love and cherish my husband, our four kids, their spouses, our eight grandkids and great-granddaughter.  I cherish and love our lives together. I value having someone who reciprocates love as I do, without having to force or feel as if I'm acting contrary to how I'm automatically inclined to love. I value our mutual support in good times and bad. I value taking care of him and him taking care of me.  I value his sense of humor, his efforts to cook (even when he still hasn't mastered how not to overcook a steak!), and his dedication as a father and grandfather. I love our weekly game nights when all 17 of our family come over for dinner and game play. I love how we share common interests, yet also teach each other to appreciate new things in areas where we differ. I value the time we spend working on our home, as well as working together in our neighborhood to make our community a better place. We both find it impossible to sleep when either of us are separated from the other--there's something comforting about sleeping next to the one you love. I love kissing him whenever we reunite or part ways every day and holding hands wherever we go, while watching TV or in a movie theater, or even in the car whenever we drive, just as my own parents expressed affection.

I imagine these are the types of things that Elder Holland values in his wife and family, as well. Like Elder Holland, I can't imagine heaven being heaven if I weren't with my family. 

Your words of "setting aside an 'identity'" seems wildly unaware of, or at the very least, tone deaf to what Mormonism is actually asking us ito set aside.

Edited March 29, 2024 by Daniel2

[LoudmouthMormon]

Ok.  Just watched the video.  It's a touching tribute to dude's mother's love.  I can appreciate it on its merits, while still disagreeing with the overall message.

It makes me think about my totally a-religious father, who went his entire life utterly uninterested in religion.  I've done his temple work, but absent some other-side-of-the-veil mighty change of heart, he's off organizing a poker game in paradise.  Looking for the postmortal version of beer, chortling over some risque thoughts about what girl angels have under their robes.  I loved and love the guy, and have spent a lifetime seeking to emulate his more desirable characteristics.  But I won't be abandoning my faith because he may not be exalted.  He would think less of me if I did.  Plus, I have no clue where I'll end up.  Plus, I do have hope and trust that all will be well, and the eternal perfect blend of justice and mercy will work in favor of both me and my dad.

The notion that "I'm built in a way that excludes me from heaven" is one that our church rejects strongly, and often preaches against.  Sorry to hear another one is buyin' the lie.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Quote

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.

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  The Proclamation states that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  That speaks to notions of "gender identity" (that is, male or female) whereas "sexual identity" pertains to same-sex attraction / orientation / proclivities.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't elevate, cling to, or cherish an "identity as a gay man." 

I did not use "cling to" or "cherish."

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I love and cherish my husband, our four kids, their spouses, our eight grandkids and great-granddaughter.  I cherish and love our lives together. I value having someone who reciprocates love as I do, without having to force or feel as if I'm acting contrary to how I'm automatically inclined to love. I value our mutual support in good times and bad. I value taking care of him and him taking care of me.  I value his sense of humor, his efforts to cook (even when he still hasn't mastered how not to overcook a steak!), and his dedication as a father and grandfather. I love our weekly game nights when all 17 of our family come over for dinner and game play. I value the time we spend working on our home, as well as working together in our neighborhood to make our community a better place. I imagine these are the types of things that Elder Holland values in his wife and family, as well. Like Elder Holland, I can't imagine heaven being heaven if I weren't with my family. 

I wish you and your family well.

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Your words of "setting aside an 'identity'" seems wildly unaware of what you're actually asking me to set aside.

I am aware.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  The Proclamation states that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  That speaks to notions of "gender identity" (that is, male or female) whereas "sexual identity" pertains to same-sex attraction / orientation / proclivities.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Sexual identity pertains to sexual identity.  My sexual identity is heterosexual.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that when the Proclamation speaks of parenthood, the pairing of husband and wife, the commandment to have sex, etc.... that none of those have anything to do with sexual attraction/identity.  Maybe you could have sex with a man if "commanded" to (perhaps you're bisexual?), but I definitely couldn't, because my sexual identity is a core component of who I am and not something I can simply put aside.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You don't know this.

Just don’t.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

And many bisexual people get along fine in the church. Particularly if they are heavily hetero-leaning and figure it out after marriage or their attraction is so minor it barely registers.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In any event, to more directly answer your question, no I don't know that "virtually every devoted LDS queer person tries this." 

You could if you actually read the stories of queer people in the church. Probably easier just to assume a narrative that fits neatly into your paradigm. Empathy might require effort.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

You are quoting a poster on this message board as an authority again. Maybe don’t do that.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

Again you fixate on identity and always put scare quotes around it.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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. 

This doesn’t work for many queer people. I would guess it doesn’t work for most.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

It doesn’t happen unless you have to deal with them.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"It" here refers to what?

No idea. Your method of responding divorces your comments from meaning which is why people tell you not to that.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Whereas you have a deep encyclopedic knowledge acquired by *checks notes* your having read about it from a rando on a message board.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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."

No, I’m not. I am saying the desires and attractions behind those identities are very real. Giving it a label helps many of those who live with them. It helps to find community and to share notes and all the other important stuff that comes from shared experiences. Without identity people are alone and scared and closeted. I am pretty sure you would see that as an upside. I don’t.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A child of God.

Why do we need an “identity” for that? It is a fairly modern innovation to talk in those terms as a primary identity. Who knows how long it will last? Wouldn’t it be better just to not “identify” as that and just be closeted about your feelings of being of divine parentage? Doesn’t this come with a risk of subordinating other identities? Best to just leave it alone?

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I hate to tell you this (lol) but the reason these identities are so important isn’t because we are obsessed with them. They are so front and center because other people make a HUGE deal about them. If we lived in a culture that just let you figure them out as you grew up without judgement they wouldn’t be a big deal. They are a big deal because many of us have to hide them. Many live in perpetual fear of being found out and what that would mean for our relationships. They are central because it is a part of ourselves we have to guard and defend. The pride parades and pride month are mostly about giving hope to those who currently have to hide. The community building is pretty secondary.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Mischaracterization.  I have not done this.

I decline to go along with your attempt at censorship.  

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

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

All wrong but that is a convenient way to dodge responding.

Thanks,

Nehor, Bisexual Warlord of the Wastes, Lord of Lechery, Duke of Degradation, Prince of Perversion

[CV75]

4 hours 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 (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.

 

 

I think the sentiment is that heaven is where the life and love (D&C uses the term "sociality") that we choose to cultivate in this life of suffering and joy, including the period before the resurrection, continue in the next life. 

[pogi]

1 hour 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.

After reading President Nelson's talk on Divine Love, I think it is a perfectly fair characterization based on the prophet's words:

Quote

While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.

Quote

the full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional—predicated upon our obedience to eternal law.”

 

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm still thinking the Coates/Craney survey needs more attention, where we discover the plausible existence of hundreds of thousands of not-straight saints:

I'm still thinking about my own personal experiences with not-straight LDS folk, and how it's a 50/50 split between those who have left, and those who remain.    I'm still thinking about my buddy who is one of these folks, and is the mirror image opposite of everything Nehor tells us about the community.

 

Yeah, I'm thinking "the LGBTQ community" is merely a fraction of the whole.  For every one of 'em, there are N numbers of people who want nothing to do with the community, what it stands for, how it thinks about sexual identity.

 

Ok, when folks stand up and go public and get counted, they seem to align with Nehor's claims.  But there's good reason to believe there are vast numbers of folks with similar inclinations who don't stand up or go public or get counted, who reflect Smac's notions.   Yes, I know one personally.  

You’re wondering why as a church member you are encountering more queer people who remain and not so many who have left? Seriously? You don’t see the obvious sampling bias here? 50/50 should be positively alarming as it is obviously a vast undercount of those who leave.

[ZealouslyStriving]

So basically:

"If you don't accept and celebrate us and allow us full participation in the Church in spite of doctrines on chastity, you are uncaring and have zero empathy."

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't think it's reasonable to expect David Archuleta's lyrics should expound on every nuance of LDS doctrine.  That's not the point or purpose of his song.

As someone who's experienced similar experiences as David myself, I can absolutely attest to the truths he sings of in feeling that in the LDS paradigm, love is absolutely perceived as conditional based on living a worthy life (and very much in keeping with what some LDS leaders have taught), and that within Mormonism, "choosing" to live in congruence with one's innate sexual and romantic orientation is not a valid choice (even knowing that Latter-day Saints actually do believe in Agency).

His song is NOT speaking about Church doctrine--it's about his personal experience of being a gay Latter-day Saint who's wrestled with how to balance his faith and inability to marry a woman.  His words certainly resonate as true and reflective of being a gay Latter-day Saint according to my own personal experience. 

The fact that you know others who have chosen to subjugate their ability to find a romantic partner in this life, or who express regret for having done so, is reflective of their own beliefs, lives, and choices. As I said previously, we're all absolutely entitled to our own beliefs.  Their experiences are as valid as they are for themselves as David's are for himself, and neither robs the other of the validity of their own personal experiences. 

I stand by my assertion that David's lyrics absolutely are not unfair, dishonest, and inaccurate.  And I speak from my personal experience in so saying.

I would add that seeing love as conditional in the Church is the default for someone who is closeted. Conditional on whether they are found out. While I am not hiding anymore there are people in the Church who don’t know. I also know that if they know our relationship will almost certainly change and not for the better. This bites even harder when it is parents and siblings. You don’t know how people will react to finding out. Having the love of a parent or a sibling or a bishop or a church friend comes with a big question mark next to it is horrible.

It also isn’t rare to put that same question mark on God’s love.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

After reading President Nelson's talk on Divine Love, I think it is a perfectly fair characterization based on the prophet's words:

 

My read us that "predicated" does not mean "earned," and the "flower" and the "blessings" are only the expressions of divine love that we are willing to receive, share and return according to the sociality we have chosen.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would add that seeing love as conditional in the Church is the default for someone who is closeted. Conditional on whether they are found out. While I am not hiding anymore there are people in the Church who don’t know. I also know that if they know our relationship will almost certainly change and not for the better. This bites even harder when it is parents and siblings. You don’t know how people will react to finding out. Having the love of a parent or a sibling or a bishop or a church friend comes with a big question mark next to it is horrible.

It also isn’t rare to put that same question mark on God’s love.

I agree the question marks are definitely there, given that many are called but few are chosen -- and I refer to the sufferers as well as to those in more favorable circumstances (for the time being, at least, depending on what they do with their good fortune). God loves us all despite our circumstances.

Edited March 29, 2024 by CV75

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You’re wondering why as a church member you are encountering more queer people who remain and not so many who have left? Seriously? You don’t see the obvious sampling bias here? 50/50 should be positively alarming as it is obviously a vast undercount of those who leave.

Yes, seriously.  When I look at the queer people I'm "encountering", I am taking you and all your stories about everyone you talk to into account.  Basically, I believe everything you've said about what the community thinks, says, and believes.  And I also believe (based on that survey data, and my 1sthand experiences) there are huge unnoticed numbers of faithful latter-day saints just happily off living their lives as disciples and not spending too much time stressing about their less desirable urges/tendencies/desires/leanings.  

From where I'm standing, you're the one vastly undercounting active LDS with SSA.  It's understandable, they're hardly out there standing up and seeking recognition.  And yet that survey tells us 4 out of every 100 of us are these folks. 

Edited March 29, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Daniel2]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These are mischaracterizations of the doctrines and beliefs of the Church.

He is imputing to the Latter-day Saints things we do not believe.

But they are not accurate characterizations of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.

It's clear we will simply disagree.  As I see it, David is not characterizing any doctrines and beliefs of the Church--he is singing about what he experienced and how he perceived life as a member of the church struggling to live a life without cognitive dissonance. No where does he imply what he's experienced is church doctrine.  Heck, any Latter-day Saint knows that the poetic invocation of the image of an actual heavenly gate isn't a literal LDS belief. 

His lyrics absolutely are accurate characterizations of his own thoughts and feelings as a Latter-day Saint.

I understand you see it differently--I'll leave it at that rather than continue to talk in circles. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Elder Holland is not rejecting or rebelling against the Restored Gospel, David is. 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did not suggest that "{o}nly Latter-day Saints can feel such things."

Hmm…🙄

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

His lyrics absolutely are accurate characterizations of his own thoughts and feelings as a Latter-day Saint.

If I believed the stuff that David believes, I'd have similar thoughts and feelings.  

Folks get to believe what they believe.  Even false things.

Edited March 29, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So basically:

"If you don't accept and celebrate us and allow us full participation in the Church in spite of doctrines on chastity, you are uncaring and have zero empathy."

You are seriously complaining that people that were driven out of the community or left because they were unwelcome are not saying nice things about the community? You need to be seen as the good guys by the sinners you throw/urge/intimidate out? Why?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You are seriously complaining that people that were driven out of the community or left because they were unwelcome are not saying nice things about the community? You need to be seen as the good guys by the sinners you throw/urge/intimidate out? Why?

Many have been very clear that if the Church would just buckle to pressure and rescind chastity policies they would have much less of a problem with the Church.