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

[Pyreaux]

Sounds like a niche market for his song though. I don't think there is much demand in music for ex-mormon messages. There's not a lot of atheist music, “take me to church” was super popular when it came out and was written because of the song writers frustration toward his churches stance on homosexuality. Between the lyrics and music video, it is probably one of the most anti-theist songs out there. That being said, most theism type songs aren't super strong elements in modern songs unless it’s country or niche things like Christian rock. I'm not sure this will restart his career... Unless he has more to sing about, but he needed to first publicly explain that his new music might be more secular risqué after publicly known to been supporting the church in the past.

[Daniel2]

9 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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.

Indeed.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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. 

And since bisexuals make up over half of the queer community and bisexuals are capable of monogamy yes! You are sharing the pews with a lot of them. Some where the urge is weak or they are now so devoted to their partner that there isn’t a strong temptation. Most don’t share it. When I was outed in one ward I was surprised at how many people had quiet conversations with me sharing their flavor of bisexuality. They wanted to be heard but knew the consequences of revealing themselves.

This is not nearly as encouraging for most gay, lesbian, or transgender people. Also many bisexual people that lean homo struggle a lot. Asexual and/or aromantic people have their own unique struggles but some can fit in.

You are also sharing the pews with a lot of closeted people struggling and putting on a brave face.

Have a comic written by someone (transgender woman) who was previously one of them where she tries to comfort her previous self:

https://allosaurusfragilis.tumblr.com/post/176976406631

Edited March 29, 2024 by The Nehor

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Sounds like a niche market for his song though. I don't think there is much demand in music for ex-mormon messages. There's not a lot of atheist music, “take me to church” was super popular when it came out and was written because of the song writers frustration toward his churches stance on homosexuality. Between the lyrics and music video, it is probably one of the most anti-theist songs out there. That being said, most theism type songs aren't super strong elements in modern songs unless it’s country or niche things like Christian rock. I'm not sure this will restart his career... Unless he has more to sing about, but he needed to first publicly explain that his new music might be more secular risqué after publicly known to been supporting the church in the past.

The song doesn't mention The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormonism, and I expect it could appeal to anyone who grew up struggling to find self-acceptance within a conservative religion of any denomination.  The song also doesn't mention sexuality and therefore could be seen as universal for a host of reasons why someone could feel ostracized.

If someone listened to the song without knowing who sang it or his life story, there's nothing that directly links it to Mormonism or being gay. 

Guess time will tell how 'the market' responds. 

That said, something tells me David didn't pen or record this one for the money, but rather as a cathartic and loving tribute to his Mother, as well as for those who've shared similar experiences. 

Edited March 29, 2024 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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. 

This and other exciting stories in this month’s edition of “Duh” magazine.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This and other exciting stories in this month’s edition of “Duh” magazine.

So what exactly was your problem with my original message you responded to then??

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Wow! I agree with your comments 100%!  

You "downvoted" her post.  Might want to change that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

No, they are both shaming of their identity. 

2 hours 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.  

Why can't they just coexist in oneness?  It is all part of being a child of God, after all. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Total BS.  Not even the church teaches/believes this.  In fact, they say that there is nothing wrong with it.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Apples and oragnes.  "A man who is sexually attracted to women" is not told to set aside his identity as a heterosexual male in order to constrain his behavior.    It is only gay people that you are shaming by telling them to set aside their identity.  You are not doing that for the heterosexual dude, just asking him to constrain his behavior.  Big difference. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I said nothing about "shame." 

You don't need to say the word "shame" in order to shame people.   You are shaming their identity. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think a big part of the difficulty is the notion that sexual attraction/orientation is an "identity" or species of people. 

"Species?"  What the hell?  Now they are a different species???  There is no problem with identifying with ones feelings.  The problem is telling others to tuck it away, don't let it show, hide it away under a rock and pretend like it doesn't exist...that is the problem!  Shame, shame, shame.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is, historically speaking, a novelty, and one that can and should be set aside. 

The word is new, the lifestyle and sexual orientation is not.  Nothing novel about it.  People in Roman and Greek societies, etc. didn't need the word, they lived it without shame or guilt. It is the guilt and shame over their life orientation that is novel to many cultures.  

 

 

Edited March 29, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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.

I think most of us would prefer being around those we love as opposed to those we are comfortable with.

I am majorly  into comfort, always have been.  But comfort isn’t what has given my life meaning or purpose or joy.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

That utility would not exist if "sexual identity" is "just another way to communicate about one's feelings."

Why not?  Not seeing logic in your reasoning, just assumption.

Edited March 30, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So what exactly was your problem with my original message you responded to then??

Your portrayal of church members as victims mostly. The vibe of “How dare they not think I am a good person?”

Yes, we could win some over by changing the doctrine. That is obvious. If you are asking if there is a way to get the LGBT community as a whole to respect us without changing the doctrine then the answer is no. You seem to be implying that there must be some way to work it out.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So what exactly was your problem with my original message you responded to then??

Duh

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Things can change in 130+ years.

Yeah, a good portion of ‘the world’ accepts us. Is that a good thing?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The angst and pain here arises from the perceived dilemma wherein he must choose one "identity" at the expense of another.

Which is shorthand for choosing one set of behaviours or another…a very real dilemma.

Quote

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.

If all it is was actually sexual behaviour and desires, I might agree with you.  But it isn’t.  You are, imo, treating the requirement of the Church for homosexual individuals to live without a relationship that includes romance, sex, but even more important for many a type of companionship where they work at becoming one in whatever way they define it as if someone is required to give up the experience of eating sugar when the reality is they are being told to no longer eat any food at all and to take all their sustenance through a tube (I have known one young man with that life)…added:  I am thinking the analogy can be expanded to the promise they are given if they do this is that some day they will even prefer ‘eating’ through a tube.

There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/long lasting couplehood just as there is no substitute for the parent/child relationship. (Which btw includes adopted children just in case someone thought I meant biological parenthood when I mean parenthood as in raising children).

There are many other deeply meaningful relationships we can have, but they are not equivalent.

It is not a fabricated dilemma or over exaggerated.

Edited March 30, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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’.

It seem to me that @smac97total world view is dominated by his testimony and personal belief that Mormonism is God's truth to the world. Everything, and I mean everything, it seems that at least for Smac, is to be subordinated to that paradigm.  Make you life fit or suffer less than best in the eternities.  And I actually understand that view and testimony as I once once an awful lot like that.  I am glad to have moved beyond that. The world and people, in all its and their diversity, is such a lovier place when you don't think you know God's truth and are one of a handful that holds God's power.

[Teancum]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You "downvoted" her post.  Might want to change that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why thank you. That was an accident. @juliannI fixed that.  

[Calm]

Asking someone to set aside their sexual identity, even if it is a social construct, is most often like telling someone to stop thinking in their native tongue.  It might be possible for some if the environment changes and they are no longer exposed to the language of their youth.  But even there quite a few will struggle even with no outward exposure to that language because there is enough inner exposure, especially for those who have difficulty learning a new language that can be fluent enough to replace the old in the complexity of one’s thoughts.  For those that have little flexibility due to age or behavioural attributes, some of which may be genetic,  no amount of self discipline can overcome the inner impulse to use the native language in thinking.

Language is a social construct.

Just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it is a choice.

Those who think in terms of sexual identity didn’t ask (as far as we know) to live in an era where such a social construct exists.  They haven’t asked to be surrounded by this social construct.  They can’t ask for it to disappear anymore than an American can ask the people in their extended environment to stop using English, though they could possibly choose to isolate themselves if they are rich enough or educated in survival and physically healthy enough to remove themselves from most social contact.  There may be countries that don’t have such a social construct in their social environment these days, but the internet has extended the reach of developed nations’ social constructs to pretty much everywhere.  Plus my guess is there are enough other social constructs that are close enough in type in every society (because every society has dealt with sex) that there would still be plenty of triggers unless one became a hermit.

Btw, I picked up the language analogy from my brother-in-law, Jeff Robinson, who has studied the subject in his professional life and worked with many trying to live the Law of Chastity as formulated by our Church.  He has said there are a lot of parallels between how language is acquired and sexual identity.  For example, there appears to be a biological drive to use language, but what language will be used is dependent on environmental influences.  There is a biological drive towards sexual expression, but how it is expressed is heavily influenced by environment when growing up and therefore uncontrolled by the individual (meaning not chosen).

Edited March 30, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think most of us would prefer being around those we love as opposed to those we are comfortable with.

I am majorly  into comfort, always have been.  But comfort isn’t what has given my life meaning or purpose or joy.

To be with those we love in eternal family relationships there are conditions that must be met, otherwise we are around those we are the most comfortable with. As the Book of Mormon emphasizes over and over and over again- it is our choice. When personal desires make that difficult is when faith that God knows what He's doing and will make right any sacrifice we must make in this life. I can't imagine the glorious reward those who experience SSA will receive if they adhere to their covenants and sacrifice their personal desires. Heavenly Father knows the pain, loneliness, and struggles of all His children. Do we really believe He will let that all go to waste?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "extreme" in their practices or behaviors. 

Well not really. Extreme though is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. Do you really have any idea how people view Latter-day Saints?  Maybe you are simply to cloistered in Utah Valley.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is shorthand for choosing a set of behaviours…a very real dilemma.

If all it is was actually sexual behaviour and desires, I might agree with you.  But it isn’t.  You are, imo, treating the requirement of the Church for homosexual individuals to live without a relationship that includes romance, sex, but even more important for many a type of companionship where they work at becoming one in however ways they define it as if someone is required to give up the experience of eating sugar when the reality is they are being told to no longer eat any food at all and to take all their sustenance through a tube (I have known one young man with that life).

There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/long lasting couplehood just as there is no substitute for the parent child relationship.

It is not a fabricated dilemma or over exaggerated.

A lot like california boy and Daniel2's relationships with their families.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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).

Follow the Prophet

 

1. Adam was a prophet, first one that we know.In a place called Eden, he helped things to grow.Adam served the Lord by following his ways.We are his descendants in the latter days.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

2. Enoch was a prophet; he taught what was good.People in his city did just what they should.When they were so righteous that there was no sin,Heav’nly Father took them up to live with him.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

3. Noah was a prophet called to preach the word,Tried to cry repentance, but nobody heard.They were busy sinning—Noah preached in vain.They wished they had listened when they saw the rain.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

4. Abraham the prophet prayed to have a son,So the Lord sent Isaac as the chosen one.Isaac begat Jacob, known as Israel;Jacob’s sons were twelve tribes, so the Bible tells.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

5. Moses was a prophet sent to Israel.He would lead them to the promised land to dwell.They were slow to follow, or so it appears.They were in the wilderness for forty years.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

6. Samuel was a prophet chosen as a boy.Hannah promised God her son would serve with joy.In the tabernacle, Samuel heard his name;He was called by God and answered, “Here I am!”

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

7. Jonah was a prophet, tried to run away,But he later learned to listen and obey.When we really try, the Lord won’t let us fail:That’s what Jonah learned deep down inside the whale.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

8. Daniel was a prophet. He refused to sin;So the king threw Daniel in the lion’s den.Angels calmed the lions, and the king soon sawDaniel’s pow’r was great, for he obeyed God’s law.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

9. Now we have a world where people are confused.If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.We can get direction all along our way,If we heed the prophets—follow what they say.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think a big part of the difficulty is the notion that sexual attraction/orientation is an "identity" or species of people.

Maybe it would be helpful for you to offer a detailed explanation of what you believe “sexual identity” means to people because “species of people” appears to be way outside the realm of how people are actually using it to describe themselves.  That you feel comfortable using it and didn’t look for an alternative makes me wonder if there is a fundamental misunderstanding you have about what “identity” is used to identify.

Edited March 29, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Follow the Prophet

 

1. Adam was a prophet, first one that we know.In a place called Eden, he helped things to grow.Adam served the Lord by following his ways.We are his descendants in the latter days.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

2. Enoch was a prophet; he taught what was good.People in his city did just what they should.When they were so righteous that there was no sin,Heav’nly Father took them up to live with him.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

3. Noah was a prophet called to preach the word,Tried to cry repentance, but nobody heard.They were busy sinning—Noah preached in vain.They wished they had listened when they saw the rain.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

4. Abraham the prophet prayed to have a son,So the Lord sent Isaac as the chosen one.Isaac begat Jacob, known as Israel;Jacob’s sons were twelve tribes, so the Bible tells.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

5. Moses was a prophet sent to Israel.He would lead them to the promised land to dwell.They were slow to follow, or so it appears.They were in the wilderness for forty years.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

6. Samuel was a prophet chosen as a boy.Hannah promised God her son would serve with joy.In the tabernacle, Samuel heard his name;He was called by God and answered, “Here I am!”

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

7. Jonah was a prophet, tried to run away,But he later learned to listen and obey.When we really try, the Lord won’t let us fail:That’s what Jonah learned deep down inside the whale.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

8. Daniel was a prophet. He refused to sin;So the king threw Daniel in the lion’s den.Angels calmed the lions, and the king soon sawDaniel’s pow’r was great, for he obeyed God’s law.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

9. Now we have a world where people are confused.If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.We can get direction all along our way,If we heed the prophets—follow what they say.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,Follow the prophet; he knows the 

Start at 2:46

“I have my agency I can do what I want” - “No you can’t! You don’t understand agency…” “The hymn is called choose the right not choose what you want.”

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I can't imagine the glorious reward those who experience SSA will receive if they adhere to their covenants and sacrifice their personal desires.

72 twinks?

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Heavenly Father knows the pain, loneliness, and struggles of all His children. Do we really believe He will let that all go to waste?

If this kind of reasoning was in scripture I would find it much more palatable but it is mostly the stuff of folklore and reasoning out what God will do based on incomplete information. And on a personal note many promises for this life failed so I am dubious of promises from the same sources about a future life.

It is also vaguely infantilizing. Look at how lucky you are to get to suffer. It will all be worth it. Meanwhile the person suffering wants the suffering to stop. It is often done by conflating the chosen suffering of scriptural heroes with the unchosen suffering of those who had it thrust upon them.

I think my own struggles in this area have made me more empathetic and more kind. I don’t think it made me more holy. It made me more suspicious of God and led me to the conclusion that seeking and knocking don’t always lead to finding and doors being opened.

[ttribe]

2 hours 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."

Reductionist nonsense.