Article Re Dan Reynolds

[smac97]

Imagine Dragons' Dan Reynolds Explains Why He Left Mormonism: I 'Love Myself Enough to Follow My Truth' (Exclusive)

Quote

For much of Dan Reynolds’ life, religion was a touchstone.

The Imagine Dragons rocker was raised in what he calls a “really conservative” Mormon household, attended Brigham Young University, and served a two-year Mormon mission in Omaha, Nebraska.

I sense a "but" coming.

Quote

But in his early 20s, something changed

And there it is!

It is not very illuminating.  "{S}omething changed" doesn't really mean much.

Back in 2018, he gave an interview in which he spoke at length about being prevented (for a time) from attending BYU because he had violated the Law of Chastity (from my notes) :

Quote

12: Dan: Right before I went to BYU, I told my bishop I had had sex with my Catholic girlfriend.  A week before I was supposed to go to BYU, I was kicked out.  Totally shamed me before my whole community.  This "shaming" is what got me going on my journey.  This is wrong.  I was still feeling things out about religious things like Joseph Smith.  But the shaming thing was wrong because it sent me into a deep depression.  It triggered a deep depression which I've now dealth with for 10+ years.  And I attribute it to that moment in time.

I commented:

Quote

He's a rather conflicted person, it seems.  He has genuine affection and love for the Church and its people.  But his personal experiences and people who influence him are creating some real conflict. 

For example, he really still seems to resent being "kicked out" of BYU (translation: he was not allowed to attend for a year because he violated one of the most serious commandments in the Church).  That seems to be a lingering sore spot, particularly since it is the apparent genesis of his weird claim about the Church "shaming" people.  And since he's been depressed about it for ten years (despite the fact that he was later admitted to BYU), it seems like this event is still sticking in his craw.  As if he thinks the Church was wrong to expect him to adhere to the standards of the Church.

His wife appears to have traveled in circles which hate Mormons.  Her roommates treated him pretty horribly, and created an us-or-them dichotomy, and then carried through with it by boycotting their wedding.  So yea, a lot of peer pressure, past and present, may be in play.

Also, it's rather odd that he denounces the Church for "shaming" him by not letting him attend BYU (though it let him attend later), and yet his wife's gay punk rock friends regularly scorned and humiliated him, treated him as "the enemy," refused to use his name, and instead called him "Mormon Boy," and all this hurt him.  But then he waves it away, because Mormons were "holding back" gays from getting married.  So "shaming" is bad when Mormons do it (and they don't, really), but just hunky dory for punk rocking lesbians.

And here:

Quote

The other option is even worse: That he is suggesting that there is some sort of formal "shaming" mechanism in the Church.  That would be flagrantly false.  The only people who know about discipline are those directly involved.  So I think he's going pretty far afield in accusing the Church of "shaming" people by . . . providing teachings about the Law of Chastity, requiring members to adhere to those teachings, and privately disciplining them when they transgress.  "Shaming" is not a part of what the Church does.

I suspect that Reynolds has resented the consequences of his violation of the Law of Chastity, and that this resentment has festered due to the passage of time, his environment and choice of influences, and so on.

Quote

— and now, at 36, it’s been several years since Reynolds was a practicing Mormon.

And despite this passage of time, he's still talking about it.

Quote

In this week’s issue of PEOPLE, the musician explains his “complicated” relationship with religion and the way he’s learned to navigate his decision to walk away while his family remains active in the church.

This seems like a common theme in Why-I-Left narratives.  

Quote

"There’s obviously parts of the Mormon religion that I feel pretty strongly are harmful, especially to our gay youth,” says Reynolds, who in 2017 founded the LOVELOUD Foundation in support of the young LGBTQ+ community.

I wonder if Reynolds is aware of stuff like this: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet

And this: USU researchers study mental health in LGBTQ+ Latter Day Saints

I also wonder if his assessment of "harmful" effects has been influenced by inaccurate information, such as Wendy Montgomery's demonstrably false claims about suicide (see, e.g., here, here). 

Quote

“At times I feel pretty isolated from my family, but I also love them and am close to them and see them, and there’s no animosity there. I’m on a different path. I have to love myself enough to follow my truth.”

"{M}y truth" has just so many conceptual flaws in it.

Quote

The “Eyes Closed” singer — whose new album Loom is out now — says he “always struggled” with religion, even while growing up the seventh of nine children to parents Ronald and Christene.

Reynolds says he spent his 20s and early 30s “really angry” at religion, as he felt he’d “been duped.”

I am curious about what he feels he was "duped."

Quote

“[I] saw a lot of the harm that came from it for me personally, but it also seemed to work incredibly well for my family, and they’re all healthy, happy individuals,” he says. “As I’ve gotten older, I'm not angry about it anymore. If something works for someone, that’s really wonderful and rare, and I don’t want to mess with it.”

I agree that living in accordance with the tenets of the Restored Gospel can be "wonderful," but I don't think it's particularly "rare."  

Quote

Still, he has chosen not to raise his four children with ex-wife Aja Volkman (daughters Arrow, 11, Gia and Coco, 7, and son Valentine, 4) in the church.

“My greatest goal every day is to not manipulate my kids. I really don’t want to try to tell them what their spiritual path should be,” he explains. “I give them my thoughts and obviously try to protect them and take care of them, while also making sure they have freedom and agency to choose whatever they want.”

Hmm.  I wonder if he will try to influence his children's views on, say, LGBT issues?  Race relations?  Constraints on sexual behavior?  If so, would that qualify as him "manipulat{ing} {his} kids?"  Would it be wrong for him to try to influence them about what they "should" think about such things?  Would such efforts amount to a violation of their "freedom and agency to choose whatever they want"?

I don't think so.  To the contrary, I think a father is derelict in his responsibilities if he does not seek to instruct his children on important moral and social issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

There you go starting another queer topic.

😜

[bluebell]

I don't think we can say much about people who sincerely feel God is telling them to do something different or believe something different.  We can disagree of course and believe they are wrong, but as far as trying to convince them they need to stay active in the church anyway, I don't think we can do that.  If someone is sincerely trying to follow God, then God will get them where He wants them, even if it's on a road that we don't understand.

I never understand the "I'm not going to teach my kids anything definitive about God because I don't want to manipulate them" idea though.  Almost all of parenting is a form of manipulation/indoctrination and teaching them does not remove their agency in any way.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Almost all of parenting is a form of manipulation/indoctrination and teaching them does not remove their agency in any way.

Yep.  I've thought for a while: The secret to good parenting is less about raising them up right, and more about how you handle it when they show you the middle finger and head off in the opposite direction from how they were raised.

Quote

“At times I feel pretty isolated from my family, but I also love them and am close to them and see them, and there’s no animosity there. I’m on a different path. I have to love myself enough to follow my truth.”
...
“[I] saw a lot of the harm that came from it for me personally, but it also seemed to work incredibly well for my family, and they’re all healthy, happy individuals,” he says. “As I’ve gotten older, I'm not angry about it anymore. If something works for someone, that’s really wonderful and rare, and I don’t want to mess with it.”

I'm guessing his parents have bent over backwards to show and communicate their love for him. 

 

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I never understand the "I'm not going to teach my kids anything definitive about God because I don't want to manipulate them" idea though.  Almost all of parenting is a form of manipulation/indoctrination and teaching them does not remove their agency in any way.

I’ve spent years teaching/indoctrinating/manipulating my children regarding the wisdom of saving money…with no discernible impact. 😉

Godspeed to Dan on his journey.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

I'm guessing his parents have bent over backwards to show and communicate their love for him. 

 

And he seems to have a good relationship with them so he'd probably agree with you.  I'm guessing (completely guessing) that his decision not to teach his kids any 'truths' about religion comes from a belief that he would have been better off if his parents had never taught him their beliefs about the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In my experience, sometimes doing the opposite of what our parents did in an effort to fix the ways that we think they messed us up can work out, but often it does nothing other than change the thing that our kids will do the opposite of to save their own kids from the trauma they got from us.

It's easy to think that if we'd had a different start or lived in a different environment then our weaknesses and trauma wouldn't exist and all would be rosey.  But in my experience no one gets out of childhood unscathed by their parents because that's life with imperfect parents.  If it's not one thing it will be another.  

(I want to be clear that I'm not talking about abusive or neglectful parents.  I'm talking about good parents with normal flaws and weaknesses).

Edited July 8, 2024 by bluebell

[LoudmouthMormon]

It goes both ways.  At least, I think it does. 

My cantankerous, irreligious, swearing/gambling/drinking father tried his best to raise me to be a good ol' boy like him.  I grew up in and around casinos and bars.  When I started paying tithing while still a minor, he swore a lot (but he swore at everything and everyone all the time, so it was really nothing new.)  But he let me.  After I grew up, moved away, got fully active, we maintained our relationship.  When I got sealed in the temple, he astounded me by being fully willing to fill the role I wanted him to fill in our day.  He endured the embarrassing moment at the wedding breakfast when I raised a toast in his honor, telling everyone of his solid good character.  He wore the tuxedo - even though he despised "fancy affairs where folk put on airs".  He stood in our line, the only non-LDS person in it.  For someone who didn't think much of religion or scripture, he sure showed me a stellar example of how to love your child.  I'm sure I disappointed him, but he gave not the slightest hint of it.

When he was dying of cancer and staying with us for a short time before entering hospice, we set aside house rules and brought him his beer.  I'm reasonably assured that when I kneel before my master and give an accounting of my life, that event won't come back to bite me.

Edited July 8, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think we can say much about people who sincerely feel God is telling them to do something different or believe something different. 

I agree.  Had Reynolds claimed that "God is telling {him} to do something different or believe something different"?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We can disagree of course and believe they are wrong, but as far as trying to convince them they need to stay active in the church anyway, I don't think we can do that. 

I agree.  Staying active in the Church is, or should be, the effect of faith more than the cause of it.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I never understand the "I'm not going to teach my kids anything definitive about God because I don't want to manipulate them" idea though.  Almost all of parenting is a form of manipulation/indoctrination and teaching them does not remove their agency in any way.

Same here.  This reasoning seems to be only selectively applied.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Would it be in poor taste to break down someone’s testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and rebut elements in it in a similar line-by-line format?

Asking for a friend.

[LoudmouthMormon]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Would it be in poor taste to break down someone’s testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and rebut elements in it in a similar line-by-line format?

Well, I didn't grow up with a testimony, but my father certainly tried to raise a kid who would never gain one.  My childhood church attendance resulted from various arguments and fights my parents had, which apparently he lost.  I was never given the full story.  The lost fight certainly didn't close his mouth, and I grew up hearing all about how religion is a waste of time.  How Mormon missionaries were not a force for good, in that they go find random people just off living their lives, and tell them "you're doing it all wrong".  A thousand other digs and arguments against religion in general, and my church specifically.  

No, I don't believe it was in poor taste.  Dad was doing what he thought was best for me.  And when it didn't take, he accepted defeat.  He loved me throughout.

On his deathbed, we had this light-hearted conversation:

"Just so you know, Imma seal you to all three of your wives.  Is there any particular order you'd like me to do them in?"
"Nah, it doesn't matter.  They're all in hell."

(I have to emphasize, this was a loving, humorous conversation.  It's how we talked to each other.  One of my fondest memories.) 

 

Anyway, conversely, it's hardly in poor taste when an LDS family attempts to raise children away from LGBT indoctrination and influences, and characterize youthful orientation claims as most likely momentary confusion/a short-term phase.

Right?

Edited July 8, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Would it be in poor taste to break down someone’s testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and rebut elements in it in a similar line-by-line format?

Asking for a friend.

No, I don't think that would be in poor taste.  If I publish my testimony to the world, I am essentially inviting the public to pay attention to it, and with attention there may be disagreement or commentary.

If commenting on or critiquing another person's perspective on matters of faith is "in poor taste," then there are a lot of things for which critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must answer.

I am glad to hear that Reynolds is no longer "really angry" at the Church, its leaders, members, whatever.  I think former Latter-day Saints who let such negative sentiments fester are not helping themselves or anyone else.  Setting aside anger is important regardless of how the individual proceeds.  It is either a necessary component to returning to the faith, or to healthily moving on in life without it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2024 by smac97

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

12: Dan: Right before I went to BYU, I told my bishop I had had sex with my Catholic girlfriend.  A week before I was supposed to go to BYU, I was kicked out.  Totally shamed me before my whole community.  This "shaming" is what got me going on my journey.  This is wrong.  I was still feeling things out about religious things like Joseph Smith.  But the shaming thing was wrong because it sent me into a deep depression.  It triggered a deep depression which I've now dealth with for 10+ years.  And I attribute it to that moment in time.

It's this kind of comment that usually catches my attention. It seems so often described as 'shame' inflicted by the Church when the Church seeks to enforce it's rules about chastity and such. It doesn't matter when it does so, the reaction seems too often described in this way. Dan's description could be inserted at any point in his development/progress within the Church. To wit -

Dan: I had been enrolled at BYU for 6 months before I had had sex with my girlfriend. A week before the next semester, I was kicked out. Totally shamed me before my whole community.

or

Dan: I was ready to graduate from BYU when I told my bishop I had had sex with my girlfriend. A week before I was supposed to graduate, I was kicked out. Totally shamed me before my whole community.

or

Dan: Just before I was to enter the temple for the first time, I told my bishop I had had sex with my girlfriend and soon-to-be wife. A week before the sealing, I was told I couldn't go. Totally shamed be before my whole community.

There is never an easy time to enforce the basic tenets of the gospel. We need to get our heads wrapped around the concept that should we decide to remain in the faith, we will be expected to maintain some standard of behavior that will be enforced should we decide to avail ourselves of the blessing/privileges of church membership. I wish Dan the best though his thoughts on this issue betray this understanding almost totally.  

[Rain]

A newspaper or magazine article can never tell the whole story.  My experience from being in the newspaper tells me that even the story that is told is often not told in the way I said it. While I see value in talking about how we should teach our children etc. and I can see that he put his own story out there any assumptions of him that is not in the article is just that, assumptive gossip, and if in  the article, like I mentioned above, can't be counted on.  

I hope the best for him and his family.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

And he seems to have a good relationship with them so he'd probably agree with you.  I'm guessing (completely guessing) that his decision not to teach his kids any 'truths' about religion comes from a belief that he would have been better off if his parents had never taught him their beliefs about the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In my experience, sometimes doing the opposite of what our parents did in an effort to fix the ways that we think they messed us up can work out, but often it does nothing other than change the thing that our kids will do the opposite of to save their own kids from the trauma they got from us.

It's easy to think that if we'd had a different start or lived in a different environment then our weaknesses and trauma wouldn't exist and all would be rosey.  But in my experience no one gets out of childhood unscathed by their parents because that's life with imperfect parents.  If it's not one thing it will be another.  

(I want to be clear that I'm not talking about abusive or neglectful parents.  I'm talking about good parents with normal flaws and weaknesses).

You bring up some good points. None of us are perfect parents and there are no perfect children.  We can just do the best we can to teach them what we feel is best and hope the good we did sticks and the mistakes we made aren't too damaging.  And then just love them all through it.

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

It's this kind of comment that usually catches my attention. It seems so often described as 'shame' inflicted by the Church when the Church seeks to enforce it's rules about chastity and such. It doesn't matter when it does so, the reaction seems too often described in this way. Dan's description could be inserted at any point in his development/progress within the Church. To wit -

Dan: I had been enrolled at BYU for 6 months before I had had sex with my girlfriend. A week before the next semester, I was kicked out. Totally shamed me before my whole community.

or

Dan: I was ready to graduate from BYU when I told my bishop I had had sex with my girlfriend. A week before I was supposed to graduate, I was kicked out. Totally shamed me before my whole community.

or

Dan: Just before I was to enter the temple for the first time, I told my bishop I had had sex with my girlfriend and soon-to-be wife. A week before the sealing, I was told I couldn't go. Totally shamed be before my whole community.

There is never an easy time to enforce the basic tenets of the gospel. We need to get our heads wrapped around the concept that should we decide to remain in the faith, we will be expected to maintain some standard of behavior that will be enforced should we decide to avail ourselves of the blessing/privileges of church membership. I wish Dan the best though his thoughts on this issue betray this understanding almost totally.  

There are definitely consequences, but there are natural consequences and consequences we impose on others on top of the natural consequences. I don't think the imposed consequences are inherently bad and are sometimes necessary depending on circumstances, but I do think that sometimes imposed consequences sometimes make us miss what we would have learned from natural consequences so we need to be careful of when and how we use them.  I would say one size does not fit all or or thing doesn't fit all times.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  Had Reynolds claimed that "God is telling {him} to do something different or believe something different"?

I inferred from the "following His truth" comment that he believes he is sincerely doing what is right (God may not be a part of it for him anymore though, I don't know).

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve spent years teaching/indoctrinating/manipulating my children regarding the wisdom of saving money…with no discernible impact. 😉

Did you say that not saving money was almost as bad as murder, that Jesus was tortured on the cross because people didn’t save and if your kids don’t save it will add to His agony (and He suffered this torture because he loves you and all he asks in return is for you to save a little and give His church 10%), that if they didn’t save money they couldn’t take the sacrament and everyone around would know why, and that not saving money would prevent the family from being together in heaven after they were dead?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Did you say that not saving money was almost as bad as murder, that Jesus was tortured on the cross because people didn’t save and if your kids don’t save it will add to His agony (and He suffered this torture because he loves you and all he asks in return is for you to save a little and give His church 10%), that if they didn’t save money they couldn’t take the sacrament and everyone around would know why, and that not saving money would prevent the family from being together in heaven after they were dead?

I think the issue with using terms like manipulation is that to manipulate means to control someone unfairly or unscrupulously, to use dishonesty to get someone to do what you want. 

Teaching someone what you sincerely believe is the best way to live or the best spiritual path is not manipulation. Unless he believes that his parents have lied to him about their testimonies and he was planning on doing the same with his kids, manipulation doesn't fit into the equation in any way.

 

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Did you say that not saving money was almost as bad as murder, that Jesus was tortured on the cross because people didn’t save and if your kids don’t save it will add to His agony (and He suffered this torture because he loves you and all he asks in return is for you to save a little and give His church 10%), that if they didn’t save money they couldn’t take the sacrament and everyone around would know why, and that not saving money would prevent the family from being together in heaven after they were dead?

Well since you asked…I had the same speed bump Dan had.  I repented and returned to the Y after I was rebaptized.  I didn’t feel I was shamed by anyone.  It was a year of learning and growth.  I felt Divine love throughout and, in due course, forgiveness.

I wish Dan Godspeed because I imagine it isn’t easy to be divorced, struggle with depression and have a complicated relationship with his family.  I would be happy to be his friend and try to help ease his burdens.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Well since you asked…I had the same speed bump Dan had.  I repented and returned to the Y after I was rebaptized.  I didn’t feel I was shamed by anyone.  It was a year of learning and growth.  I felt Divine love throughout and, in due course, forgiveness.

I wish Dan Godspeed because I imagine it isn’t easy to be divorced, struggle with depression and have a complicated relationship with his family.  I would be happy to be his friend and try to help ease his burdens.

I do appreciate his even-handed comments about the Church, as opposed to the scorched earth rhetoric some former Latter-day Saints utilize.  I sense he is willing to let reasonable minds disagree about the Church's truth claims and overall character.  Good on him.

Edited July 9, 2024 by smac97

[let’s roll]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Did you say that not saving money was almost as bad as murder, that Jesus was tortured on the cross because people didn’t save and if your kids don’t save it will add to His agony (and He suffered this torture because he loves you and all he asks in return is for you to save a little and give His church 10%), that if they didn’t save money they couldn’t take the sacrament and everyone around would know why, and that not saving money would prevent the family from being together in heaven after they were dead?

One more thought…I remember singing There Is A Green Hill Far Away as a youngster and thinking it was odd that the lyricist found the need to mention the city had no wall.  About the 100th time I sang the song I had an epiphany…that epiphany was an early building block in helping me understand the different ways that gospel is heard and understood. As I reflected on that seemingly insignificant experience over the years, other insights and impressions came to mind the sum of which have led me to feel grace for the way others have attempted to explain and express Gospel principles as well as grace for how others interpreted and internalized those attempts, and finally grace with respect to my own efforts to return repeatedly to Gospel principles to deepen and refine my understanding.

Perhaps the meaning of “without a city wall” was crystal clear to you the first time you sang the hymn.  I am grateful it wasn’t for me.  Godspeed to you.

Edited July 9, 2024 by let’s roll

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the issue with using terms like manipulation is that to manipulate means to control someone unfairly or unscrupulously, to use dishonesty to get someone to do what you want. 

Teaching someone what you sincerely believe is the best way to live or the best spiritual path is not manipulation. Unless he believes that his parents have lied to him about their testimonies and he was planning on doing the same with his kids, manipulation doesn't fit into the equation in any way.

 

Reynolds can speak for himself, of course, but the way I understood him, when he talks about “manipulation” he’s talking about using guilt and fear to make people believe things that they wouldn’t believe if those tactics weren’t used. In the vast majority of cases, people’s religious beliefs are driven by sociology more than an open-minded and rational examination of the evidence. That explains why most practicing members were born and raised in the Church, and why in the overwhelming majority of cases converts cease believing if they aren’t socially integrated into the local congregation. It’s why “he was converted to the missionary and not to the gospel” is a thing.

I suspect Reynolds would find some truth in what Richard Dawkins said: 

Quote

‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.’ The adage is true as long as you don’t really believe the words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase ‘child abuse’ is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.

 

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Well since you asked…I had the same speed bump Dan had.  I repented and returned to the Y after I was rebaptized.  I didn’t feel I was shamed by anyone.  It was a year of learning and growth.  I felt Divine love throughout and, in due course, forgiveness.

I wish Dan Godspeed because I imagine it isn’t easy to be divorced, struggle with depression and have a complicated relationship with his family.  I would be happy to be his friend and try to help ease his burdens.

I'm glad you feel it worked out to you. It’s your life, but from my perspective, the whole thing is an imaginary solution to a made-up problem and a massive waste of time feeling guilt over something you were manipulated to feel guilty about.

7 hours ago, let’s roll said:

One more thought…I remember singing There Is A Green Hill Far Away as a youngster and thinking it was odd that the lyricist found the need to mention the city had no wall.  About the 100th time I sang the song I had an epiphany…that epiphany was an early building block in helping me understand the different ways that gospel is heard and understood. As I reflected on that seemingly insignificant experience over the years, other insights and impressions came to mind the sum of which have led me to feel grace for the way others have attempted to explain and express Gospel principles as well as grace for how others interpreted and internalized those attempts, and finally grace with respect to my own efforts to return repeatedly to Gospel principles to deepen and refine my understanding.

Perhaps the meaning of “without a city wall” was crystal clear to you the first time you sang the hymn.  I am grateful it wasn’t for me.  Godspeed to you.

I always thought it was meant to be taken literally; Golgatha was located immediately outside the Jerusalem city walls (in this context, “without” means “outside”).  But if you have a way of reading it that is more meaningful to you, that’s great.

Edited July 9, 2024 by Analytics

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm glad you feel it worked out to you. It’s your life, but from my perspective, the whole thing is an imaginary solution to a made-up problem and a massive waste of time feeling guilt over something you were manipulated to feel guilty about

Boy, that sounds awful familiar, let me see- yeah, ok, here it is: Alma 30

"23 Now the high priest’s name was Giddonah. And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

26 And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—

27 And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

28 Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be."

Edited July 9, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm glad you feel it worked out to you. It’s your life, but from my perspective, the whole thing is an imaginary solution to a made-up problem and a massive waste of time feeling guilt over something you were manipulated to feel guilty about.

I always thought it was meant to be taken literally; Golgatha was located immediately outside the Jerusalem city walls (in this context, “without” means “outside”).  But if you have a way of reading it that is more meaningful to you, that’s great.

I think when he was little, he thought the song meant that it happened in a city that did not have walls. When he got older, he realized that it meant outside of a city. And that experience has taught him that sometimes the obvious meaning to us Isn’t actually what the speaker means, and sometimes the obvious interpretation to us is not obvious to others who interpret it differently.

And as such, he has a lot more grace for people understanding things (or saying things) in a different way than he does/would or coming to a different conclusion than he did.

At least that’s how I understood him. Maybe I am the one that’s confused. 😆