carlimac

I just sent a facebook message to my cousin who lives in NYC to see what the feeling is out there. I'll report back when I find out.

Thanks Dravin. Enlightening discussions. I'm slow to the punch on this. I don't come around this forum very often. Now I'm wondering if those who were "meh- no big deal" about it before are starting to get a little uncomfortable that this show and all it contains (the good, bad and downright ugly) will now be even more widely acclaimed and , for lack of a better word- conspicuous! It's one thing if it's a small little show that hardly anyone attends. It's quite another to have it being promoted and held up to the spotlight like this. I also wonder how it's affecting missionary work in New York City. I'm sure those poor elders and sisters will have some explaining to do to correct false perceptions. I suppose that could be a good thing in some cases. Do they park themselves outside the theater with directions to the church visitor's center? I highly doubt it but it might be a good tactic. (Sigh) Sometimes I wish I belonged to some little obscure and totally unknown church congregation so I could just worship without having to deal with all this bad publicity.

Just a few questions...Has anyone seen it or heard from someone personally who has seen it? (Would you see it if someone gave you free tickets?) Is it any good or is it totally offensive? Should we feel sheepish about foolish caricatures of our missionaries winning acting awards? I guess this musical isn't a whole lot different than say "Singles Ward" or the movies made about pinewood derbies and church basketball fiascos. It's just the venue and the publicity and the audience that is different. Somehow it's alright if we laugh at ourselves and our idiosyncrasies. But to have audiences in NYC who may not know anything else about the spiritually uplifting aspects of our doctrine and beliefs, having their first exposure to the church be something like this is unfortunate at best. Ah well, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about it. Just wondering if anyone has thoughts about the show soon to make even bigger headlines than it did when it first opened.

Sign of the times? Maybe. But judgement? I wouldn't mention it.

Wow, I never remember it being that cold in Logan. But then we moved from there to MN so maybe my memory froze up.

Where do you live?

I was just there today. It's so beautiful this time of year! I lived there for 7 years after I got married and I'd move back in a heartbeat. Our neighborhood was probably 90% LDS (which can be a good thing or not so good depending on your perspective) My grandparents all the way back several generations and my mother were Cache Valley natives. We'd visit Logan several times a year when I was a kid. I grew to love the cow smell that hit you as you came out of Sardine Canyon. I remember when 2400 North where one aunt and uncle lived was way out in the country. Now it's businesses along Main with almost no break all the way up to Smithfield. Kinda sad that way but there is still lots of open space. I really think it's one of the most beautiful places in Utah. Plus there is plenty of "culture" with USU there. Utah Opera Co and plenty of great music resources. Not the best college sports teams but there are many old timers who are loyal regardless. Now you have me all nostalgic.

That was so fun! Thanks for posting it.

Yes!

Where did I say all jazz dance is bad? It's just the suggestive movements and very skimpy costumes that I disapprove of. I realize that there can just as easily be inappropriate actions within ballet and lyrical dance. That's pretty easy to find on youtube, too. My two examples were simply one that was wholesome and clean, and one that was not. Both showed 7-8 yr old girls dancing. I thought ny examples were pretty straightforward.

The big tornado in Joplin MO apparently destroyed the high school there. The LDS chapel was across the street from the high school. Any news on how the chapel fared? My guess is that it was destroyed, too, but I haven't heard anything about it yet.

Agreed. I wonder if church members would allow their daughters to dance like that at a ward talent show? I doubt it!

Sigh!! There is a tendency of some commentors on this forum to rip, shred and otherwise discombobulate an opinion and topic till it no longer resembles the intent of the OP. Let me spell it out again: 1) Some dance performances done by little girls are sexually suggestive in nature. (Shimmying, bumping, gyrating, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. ) 2) I attended a dance recital that was begun with a prayer, attended by my home teacher and my daughter's best friend's mother (who is also her YW leader- I failed to mention that detail the first time) where their daughter was dancing in a suggestive manner in a costume that was backless. Other dances included bare midriffs and leotards for developing adolescents without enough support in the chest area. 3) I was uncomfortable with the performance. It felt dark and unwholesome to me. 4) During performance many audience members were cat-calling, cheering and screetching out names when especially vigourous moves were made. 5) After performance, mother of friend is all smiles and says how proud she is of her daughter's performance. 6) I'm inwardly confused at why a mother, YW leader and testimony bearer would be "proud" of such a spectacle. My own conclusion in watching 5 daughters dance in my living room without any training by "professional" dance teachers is that the kind of movement that comes more naturally to little girls is the kind without sexual overtones. I feel it's really sad and inappropriate that adults teach the OTHER kind of dance motions (as described in #1) to young girls. Really my only questions were, "What am I missing? When did suggestive dance become something we (as LDS members) start with a prayer and express pride for in observing our young girls." Really is there any reason to bash that opinion other than the fact that some people on this forum are continually argumentative, overly critical and like to pick on the new guy?

I realize that they are different. I showed these two because (if you read my post) I believe children- well little girls from what I've seen (and I have 5 girls) dance more naturally in the more appropriate, classical form. Not to say the little girl in the video didn't need to be taught some of those moves. But what I'm saying is that I believe God approves of the second type of dancing over the first. That's what the Holy Ghost is telling me anyway. And I did say that I enjoy watching dance with a jazzy beat as long as it's not suggestive. If you'd like I'll try to find a clean jazz dance on youtube but you can do that yourself.

Here are two examples. There is this: And then there is this: It's not too hard to tell which one is more appropriate. I just looked these up on you tube. There weren't from this recital I went to last night. But the first was more like what I saw than the later. I agree that dance leotards and swimsuits don't always follow the standards exactly. I'm not so rigid that I can't accept that swimsuits have spaghetti straps and ballet leotards are form fitting. But it's what is done in those uniforms that makes a difference. All of these little girls were talented dancers. It's just sad that the first group was taught movements that children don't (or shouldn't) be doing naturally. I don't think it would go over any better by 10 yr olds or even adults. It's just ugly. My own little girls have never taken dance lessons but still like to dress up and dance around to music. What they do naturally is more like the second video. They would only dance like the first if they were taught that by someone older. It's just shameful to me that little girls are taught moves like in the first video when they have so much talent to naturally and beautifully express themselves. I don't think it's just a matter of personal taste in dance either. I love to watch dance to a jazzy beat and I've seen it done well without immodesty.

I went to a dance concert tonight. For those who don't know what this is...it's basically a "recital" or performance by a dance studio that teaches mostly girls from 3 to18 yrs of age. So this is the thing...I live in a very conservative and at least 50% LDS area. I'd say at least 1/2 or more of the girls in the performance were LDS. The owner of the dance studio must be LDS because she asked a guy to say an opening prayer. It was a standard, classic LDS prayer. BUT then the girls dancing got on stage and performed suggestive and frankly embarrassing moves- even some of the little girls about 6-8 yrs old. There was a little ballet mixed in but most of the dances had music that had a hard beat and lots of little girls gyrating, shaking their booties, shimmying, making pouty faces, etc. My daughter's best friend- the daughter of our home teacher was in the highest competetive group and I was embarrassed by their skimpy costumes and their moves. They were very precise and did a good job at staying together...but it all made me uncomfortable. So my question is...if it's OK with all these other parents that their daughters are dancing sexy on stage, what's wrong with me? Why am I so uncomfortable with it? Why doesn't it seem like compromised standards to them? It seemed so ...ironic or something that they would start a performance like that with a prayer. I was hoping to see something a little more tame. I was even hoping I'd found a dance studio that I could start my little girls with. But no...not going there.

Yes it's odd. I don't know anyone who "got it" the very first time. Luckily my mom warned me about the men's hats or I might have burst out in giggles. Keep going back! Go regularly and often and it will start to make more sense. I went for the first time 28 years ago. Each time is a different experience, even though it's exactly the same. I learn something different every time. Certain phrases will jump out at me and I know that's what I'm supposed to ponder and learn that time. I especially love to do washings and annointings. What beautiful blessings! Also, it takes on a different meaning when you start doing endowments for someone else- which you will the next time you go. It will always be for someone else and that takes the pressure off a little (for me anyway.) I remember a bit later in life after I started having kids and life got very complex, feeling like there was no way I could keep those covenants I had made and why hadn't someone told me exactly what I would be promising beforehand. Why don't they give us a chance to think about it a while before having to promise, like you would before getting baptized? I mean who really would ever just walk out of the temple in the middle of the endowment session cause they weren't in the mood to commit. I'm sure some have but that would really take guts. In fact I don't really think I even realized what I had promised afterward cause the whole first experience was so unusual. But I'm at the point now, after so many years of attending the temple, that I realize that the promises we make are serious. But God is a loving father and understands our weaknesses and our imperfections. He wants us to keep working at it daily. Going to the temple often is a good reminder of the eternal nature of the progress we'll make. I don't think He expects us to understand and be perfect after just one temple experience. Hang in there. It gets better.

Did you ask the guy what he meant by "the church is moving in a different direction on these things"? Perhaps the Church has decided to be more choosy about which sites to maintain and keep up. Perhaps the building was in such bad shape that it would have been too costly to refurbish. Termites? Not enough people in the area to justify the money spent to keep it up? Who knows? These tough decisions have to be made. Some will like them and some won't.

I doubt it since I craved having babies.

What makes you think I don't understand what you're saying? What makes you think I'm trying to change anyone? It sounds to me like you're as stuck in your perception of "the church" as you think we are of gays. You keep telling me the same thing over and over. Don't try to change you. I'm not. I really don't think the church is. All the leaders are asking is for someone with whatever attraction they have to keep the commandments. That is all. The commandments are so simple and straight-forward. If someone wants to undergo "treatment' or whatever they are more than free to. I read something recently about an LDS person with SSA who didn't even want to define himself as gay. It was something about him but it wasn't him. I prefer that approach. So much less baggage for everyone to worry about.

Sorry. I didn't know you had ever been baptized. I thought you had only been Catholic. And from a few things you have posted lately it sounded like you have more aetheistic leanings than anything else. NO I don't understand. I can't possibly. I've tried and tried and it just makes no sense to me. But there are a lot of "preferences" that people have in this world that I just can't get. Marachino cherries in ice cream, horror movies, hard acid rock, tongue piercings, rock climbing up steep cliffs thousands of feet above the ground, bright purple wall paint. All those things make me cringe! I will never understand the attraction to any of those things. I'm sure there are lots of things you don't relate to either. But somehow we all have to co-exist on this planet and it requires give and take and tolerance from all. We as LDS know we need to be more tolerant. That message is coming out loud and clear. We need to change our thinking about how we treat gays conscously and sub consciously. I'm asking you, (I don't know what your current status is- excommunicated, removed your name from the records or just MIA?) to be as tolerant of church members as you are asking us to be of you... to be compassionate of us since you do have inside knowledge of church doctrine. Surely, having had some kind of testimony at some point you should understand how homosexual marriage has no place in Heavenly Father's plan. Also that the way we show love is by encouraging gays and lesbians to stay chaste so that they are eligible for eternal blessings. I'm going to cherry pick your post a little more. I think comparing your "preferences" to someone born with a congenital problem is ridiculous. Even if in the future it is determined that homosexuality is a genetic mutation or whatever, they DO have control over the choice of engaging in homosexual behavior or not. There is no moral decision that children with Down Syndrome, missing a limb or blind have to make. They just are the way they are. There is no such thing as a Down Syndrome "lifestyle". Whether or not a man or woman submits to the homosexual lifestyle from the way they dress and act (I'm talking the stereotypical gay) to who they go to bed with is a choice. Same for hetero sexuals. Men have the ability to decide if they will take on characteristics of extreme machismo, whether or not they will try to mate with any woman they are attracted to. Hetero women have the same freedom of choice. Without some kind of moral guide for people to follow this world would be a frightful place. I take that back- it already IS a frightful place.

Soul, you are a good person and I believe you're sincere. Some of the probelms with your arguement though are that you are approaching this from a non-LDS standpoint. Sure the world will put their collective arms around you when you say I was "born that way". I'm sure it's nice to have that feeling of acceptance. But they are not going to do one thing to stop you from getting sexually involved with your same gender if you so desire. It's like the socially awkward teen who finds acceptance in the crowd of kids who smoke pot. They will bring him right into the group and tell him he is OK even though no one else can see his value. It must feel so good to finally be accepted. But is smoking pot good for him? Absolutely not. And that crowd doesn't care if it's bad for him or not. They won't take one step in helping him cope with his social problems. They will only share their pot with him. The gay /lesbian community doesn't give a hoot if some kid is LDS and trying to live a chaste life. Yes they will love him/her and give him all kinds of encouragement. They will make sure he knows he can't do a darn thing about his homosexuality. I suppose that must feel good. Whew! I can finally be WHO AM" BUT they will also try to convince him that any church that doesn't allow him to express his sexuality and become involved is mean and hateful. They will destroy his/her testimony of the eternal principles that are so vital for our salvation. Believe it or not, there are other things that are more important than feeling good about ourselves and being accepted. Standing up for truth and righteousness is more important. WE were told in General Conference today that things will only get harder for memebers of the church in the future as the world continues to turn away from Heavenly Father and His eternal principles. If that means a gay or lesbian person needs to completely avoid others they know are gay and, though loving and accepting, will undermine their determination to stay clean, then so be it. I believe they will be blessed for it. Not an easy road to travel and one of great lonliness. I don't envy them . It must be terribly hard. I don't expect you to fully understand this since you have never been a member of the church. But this is the way it is. Yes the church is "behind the times" as far as acceptance of gays go. We are struggling with this issue too because we are commanded to love all but we cannot accept any degree of sin as OK in our lives. It puts us between a rock and hard place and at times it pits our spiritual goals against our social sensibilities. We are trying to find a balance. Some members of the church sway drastically to one side or the other. You need to try to understand where we are coming from and believe that we ARE trying to figure it all out. Please quit forever bringing up the past in how we have dealt with gays. We are learning and trying to adjust our thinking. But I can guarantee that unless God tells our prophet that now gay marriage is now sanctioned by Him, it won't be accepted by the majority of church members and there will always be those who fight for all they are worth against it. I am one of those. It really has very little to do with the intinsic value or lack thereof of gay or lesbian people. It has EVERYTHING to do with trying desperately to cling to deeply held beliefs in traditional marriage and the absolute necessity of it to gain celestal life. That may all sound like a fairy tale to you. But it is very real to church members. Please take a minute to try to put yourself in our shoes, just like you are begging us to understand you.

I guess I've been guilty of this. I've actually prayed to understand this becuse it's so befuddling to me. The answer I've gotten - twice now is, "It doesn't matter what the cause of homosexuality is. The real issue is how we treat those who are trying their best to deal with it and keep the commandments. Don't add to their burden. You have burdens and weaknesses of your own. You wouldn't want others belittling you for those." So to clarify, I DO have compassion for those who are genuinely trying to live the way our FAther in Heaven has commanded. It must be really tough. I just read this again http://http://lds.org/liahona/2004/09/compassion-for-those-who-struggle?lang=eng&query=homosexuality My heart goes out to this person. One of my weaknesses is judging others and getting offended by what I see as wickedness in the world. So I do have a problem feeling compassion for all who justify their homosexual activity and have no restraint and those who spit (literally and figuratively) on those of us who proclaim that chastity and opposite gender marriage is what the Lord expects of us. Again...I know I need to work on loving everyone despite their indisgressions. (Don't get me started on the subject of tattoos and multiple piercings. Ugh! That one is even harder for me to accept.) I've got a lot of humbling to go through and work to do. Anyway, my apologies for trying to dig to understand the origin of homosexuality. It's something I, for one, am not supposed to know the answer to right now.

Psalms 145:20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy. Makes you wonder.

This is my thought on that. God did protect HIS people and he also chose to take some of HIS people. Everyone in the world is one of "HIS people". I've said this before. The ones that died may have been the lucky ones in many scenarios. The ones that must continue living in such dire circumstances have a very very difficult journey. I think the missionaries who were spared realize this when they say that all they want to do is get back to the Sendai mission and help those folks.