WBMW

Frozen: My Response to Outrageous Reaction

One time, when I received a strong negative reaction to a blog post I had written, a friend (a liberal Mormon at that, which made it all the better), hoping to minimize the situation and cheer me up said: "Haters gonna hate, Kathryn". 

I think about that little phrase from time-to-time, and use it to shake off the dust and get back up on the horse. If the truth be known, I have my own agenda


If there's one thing I'm constantly reminded of, it's that the online world changes at a faster pace than any other medium, and generally because of that, we can resume normal operations relatively quickly. 

The fact of the matter is, when I sit down to write, the subject isn't something I just randomly select to drive traffic to my blog. At least not for this blogger - it never has been. Although I suppose if I monetized A Well-Behave Mormon Women I might think differently. 


Rather, I feel compelled to share something of worth with my readers, and nine times out of ten it's likely to have something to do with my religious faith - which I value tremendously. My personal beliefs, are at the foundation of who I am, how I live, and what I have to say. 


For me, writing a meaningful piece is work. It requires the ability to discern whether I've got the stuff to make a point in a way that people will listen, because it matters; and I don't take that lightly. Perhaps it might be a bit sloppy on occasion, although I don't mean for it to be. But hey, that's what you get when you read a 54-year-old grandmother's blog, who married at age 18 and never went to college. I have a husband with integrity and five beautiful children (yes, one is a lesbian, whom I love deeply) to show for it. Also, three intelligent son-in-laws, one precious daughter-in-law, and currently 11 fantastic grandchildren. 


Now, about those "haters" who tend to form in groups, travel together, and meet-up on similar issues, research suggests that it may not be so easy for them to stop their hating. The Washington Post's, Sarah Kliff, reports:



"Now, scientists have taken it upon themselves to figure out whether this is true. Do verified haters tend to hate everything else they stumble upon? Yes, according to a new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. People who tend to hate things they already know about are (surprise!) more disposed to hate things they have not yet come in contact with." (read more)

Regardless, there's no justifiable reason that anyone should treat another person, whose opinion they don't agree with, as subhuman. Which is what I've experienced in response to the post I wrote about the movie, Frozen.

I want to put it out there, that it's not okay. And I hope that you don't think so either.

The majority of comments on the post are riddled with vitriol. Some were so vile, that I felt I had to close comments. The criticism for doing so caused me to reconsider and publish all of them without reading first (I don't have the stomach). Under normal circumstances I would never allow such a display of hatred on my blog, but sadly I think this exception is important.

If this is an example of what can happen when one person, a grandmother, with a faith-based opinion about a children's movie, speaks out to inform Christian parents of something she believes is important, in my opinion, all of us should be seriously concerned, regardless of the content of the post or objection to its presentation. 


I'd like to make a few clarifications about some of the things that I wrote in the post, which are being misrepresented, misunderstood, or were never said:

  • I did not say that people should boycott Frozen, rather, I liked the film.
  • I do not think the movie Frozen is evil, although I do see a strong gay theme running throughout the film.
  • I never said that children who watch Frozen will become gay.
  • I do not believe people who advocate for SSM are evil.
  • I do not hate homosexuals.
  • I never said that Christian parents who didn't see a gay message in Frozen are stupid.
  • I am aware that others see different themes in Frozen, which are positive.
  • I believe a progressive element is strongly rooted in all forms of media and intentionally influences culture, in order to normalize that which currently is opposed by mainstream society - often so subtle that most don't detect it. 

I want to thank, my friend, Jonathan Max. Wilson, author of www.sixteensmallstones.com, who after witnessing the strong resistance to the ideas I presented in my post took it upon himself to address the subject of subversive messaging.


"Frozen can certainly be successfully applied as an allegory for homosexual struggle. The authors may or may not have had that in mind when they wrote it. But Frozen is good enough art to rise above a specific allegorical meaning. It demonstrates broad applicability to many different human experiences. That is why it appeals to so many people."

Lastly, for the two or three of you, who agreed that I might just be onto something, I've included links (many sent to me, thank you), to a few other sources that, though not as interesting as mine, do a much better job and validate that perhaps I'm not as crazy as some want to think. Thanks, for hanging with me on this one. 

Update: I just realized that in order to read the over 1,500 comments left on the post, to date, you must scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on: load more, over and over again. #Bloggerfail

tDMg,

Kathryn Skaggs 




"Frozen's subtext is so gay, it's barely subtext; it's just on-the-nose text. The folks at Disney practically put it all out on Front Street, but for those who missed it or just weren't paying attention, let me lay it out for you: Frozen is all about a young girl who was born different, a difference that her parents told her to hide away from the world at large, partly because the world would reject her, and partly because they really care what the neighbors think. After Elsa's true nature is revealed to the kingdom, she's denounced as a freak and a monster and driven out of her own home. After that, she creates her own fabulous kingdom for herself (and sings a doozy of a number about self-acceptance and pride.)"

"Eventually, her only family left, her sister, expresses to her that she loves her no matter what, and convinces her to come back home where eventually the people around her learn the error of their ways and accept her. Yes, this is the story of Frozen, but it's also the story of almost every indie gay coming-out movie that's played Sundance for the past 20 years."

Want to understand your gay family member? Go see Frozen.

"Elsa, the older sister, has a magical gift: She can summon ice and snow. (A troll later asks if she was “born” or “cursed” with this power, one of many lines hinting at an allegory for LGBT people. The answer: She was born that way.)"


"The stars of the show are Anna and Elsa voiced by the beautiful and talented Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel. It’s easy to say this movie is about sisterly love, but I took away a bigger sense of a family dealing with discrimination. Now that discrimination could be from an illness, handicap, or even homosexuality. Some families will go so far as to lock people out of their home as to not let outsiders in for fear of embarrassment. That’s exactly what Elsa and Anna’s parents do to them after Anna has her accident caused by Elsa’s powers. And if you think me saying that the analogy of Elsa being gay is a stretch, then why do they tell her to “conceal, don’t feel” and literally lock her in a closet? To me Frozen is a metaphor for family members accepting each other for who they are and not what the neighbors will think of them. When Elsa is finally able to come out of her proverbial closet, she leaves her bigoted town and becomes ‘fabulous” the the tune of “Let it Go.” It’s now Anna’s job to track her down in the mountains to tell her that she is still loved and to not let the hate of the people poison her heart. Both Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel did a wonderful job with their voice acting, especially when it comes to singing. I never knew Bell had such a pretty singing voice, and of course Menzel brings her talents from Fox’s Glee and Broadway’s Wicked to belt out some amazing songs."


Beware the Frozen Heart: Is Disney’s ‘Frozen’ An Allegory for Coming Out?

"Disney might not be coming out and saying, “This is Elsa’s version of coming out,” but they don’t need to; it’s evident to every boy or girl carrying a secret around with them that threatens to crush them every day, at any moment; it’s clear to the grown audience members what Elsa is dealing with."


"There is a lot of controversy to the idea of a queer character in a kids film. No matter how much heterosexual romance and kissing is in kids media, the exact same thing but with a gay couple would be considered inappropriate. Queer people are oversexualized by cis heterosexuals to be inappropriate. And that is why if they even wanted Elsa to be lesbian or bisexual, it wasn't going to happen without Disney taking a big leap. But while she isn't canonically queer, she also isn't straight and to assume she must be would be heterosexism. I like to think all the aforementioned reasons hint to her being queer but really it is about personal bias."


"That being said, I left Frozen with many similar observations about the film's empowering message. The difference is that I found them to be awesome and inspiring instead of subversive and harmful. I don't think the movie is specifically about being "gay", but I do think that it was intentionally built around the themes of being "your true self" and not the "self" society tells you to be. I doubt the parallels to current events escaped the folks at Disney. Still, that theme doesn't just apply to LGBT people, but can apply to anyone who is deemed "different" and consequently marginalized, oppressed, or repressed because of who they are.

FROZEN Movie Review: A New Classic Disney Animated Musical

"Is Elsa gay? I think there’s certainly a valid queer reading to be found in the film. It isn’t like she has a girlfriend - or any romance at all - but the idea that she was born different (it’s explicitly specified that she was born this way, not cursed) and that her difference makes her not a ‘good girl’ (a phrase repeated) lends itself to that interpretation. If we read Elsa as gay, Anna’s quest to show her that she is loved and accepted becomes all the more profound."




"Let me reframe this story in a different light now. Imagine if Elsa didn’t have ice powers. Imagine instead, for the purposes of this entry only, that her real secret is that she is gay. When I left the theatre I couldn’t help but notice some parallels between Elsa’s struggle and what some individuals deal with today. Elsa is taught by her parents at a young age to “conceal, don’t feel.” She is asked to hide who she truly is because it might upset others. Her escape to the mountains and acceptance of her powers as who she is can also be seen this way. After leaving what is familiar and being allowed to find herself, she isn’t forced into a mold."

"In fact, Elsa’s shame and misplaced fear of herself can apply to anyone struggling with an identity crisis. I think it is only in Frozen’s pro-female story that I specifically pick up on the hidden-self vibe as gay. During a scene with ballroom dancing, the man romancing Anna remarks how he couldn’t get close to her sister. This is clearly about her fear of ice powers, but that isn’t the only reason to brush off a dancing partner. Under normal Disney guidelines, by the end of the film, Elsa’s goofy snowman would turn out to be the snowman of her dreams."


Slant: Disney's Frozen teems with gay themes long before it hits its stride.

"Disney's Frozen teems with gay themes long before it hits its stride. It tells the story of Elsa, a princess from the land of Arendelle endowed with inexplicable, ice-emitting powers that shame her parents. In childhood, she injures her sister Anna during snowy playtime, and the half-stone trolls beseeched with healing Anna's wound ask if Elsa was "born" or "cursed" with her gifts. (Fans of the similarly queer-friendly X-Men saga will note some striking parallels: Elsa develops a can't-touch-this mutation a la Rogue, while Anna's trauma leaves her with the Marvel character's white-streaked hair.) Mom and Dad do acknowledge that Elsa was born this way, but after having Anna's memory wiped, they nevertheless urge Elsa to remain in the family's castle, its locked gates signifying the girl's closed-off, guilt-ridden heart. "Conceal, don't feel," the princess is taught to tunefully recite in the film, which is based on Hans Christian Anderson's The Snow Queen, and hinges its chief conflict of eternal winter on the dangers of emotional suppression."


Sorry for the “CROOD” Comparison but I Just Can’t “LET IT GO”


Now that some time has passed and after being subjected to every rendition of “Let it Go” my kids have seen fit to share with me, I have discovered my problem with the movie really is with the music. Not the singing of course, but the lyrics. The more I hear them, the more convinced I am that I just can’t stand the lyrics from this movie. The more I see them sung over and over by innocent young children the more I am so irritated! Music has such power. It can literally stay in you for a lifetime. Why in the world would anyone want those lyrics running around in their head for the rest of their life?


7 Moments That Made 'Frozen' the Most Progressive Disney Movie Ever

"Disney's latest movie musical Frozen has been hitting high notes ever since its release over Thanksgiving. In addition to the serious cash the film has raked in, it looks like it's going to bring in a few awards as well. After winning Best Animated Film at the Golden Globes,Frozen is up for the Best Animated Picture Oscar. Its signature song "Let it Go" also earned an Oscar nod. Frozen's monumental success can and should not be understated. The film isn't going anywhere."

"One reason for its success is its huge divergence from other Disney films, particularly in its depiction of modern people, problems and ideas that resonate with millennials."


Photo Source: wikimedia

123 comments :

  1. A wise person once told me that I am the only one that can change the perceptions of others. If you feel your writing was taken the wrong way, then maybe you only need to look to yourself to figure out why and not just play the victim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment might be okay if it weren't for the fact that the type of hate comments she undoubtedly got were not justified. I recently experienced some of this myself about a different issue. I don't feel she is "playing the victim", she really is a victim of hateful com mentors. It's one thing if people were merely disagreeing. But I think it very unfair of you to suggest that some who has been abused, deserved it.

      Delete
    2. Reading through the comments (and yes, I have read them all) the vast majority were not "hateful" but rather intelligent and well worded. Kathryn is now intending to garner sympathy from this crowd because of a few so called trolls.

      What she did was write a blog entry that "did not hate gays" but seemed, based on the writing, to be highly homophobic and full of vitriol (oops better not say that--I'll be labeled a hater and a troll for expressing an opinion contrary to hers). and she got told off in rather intelligent and well worded ways.

      Danolgb is exactly right. If her writing is taken the wrong way then one needs to look at the writer, not the reader.

      Delete
    3. Completely agree with everything you said, Lou.

      I would like to add that Kathryn is free to hold any opinion or belief about homosexuality that she wants. However, if she chooses to express that opinion in a public forum, knowing that it is an unpopular one, she can't cry foul when people call her out for it.

      Now, I don't agree with the spirit of the comments that truly were "hateful". Intelligent people conduct themselves with grace and dignity. I do agree, however, with the actual message they were trying to get across; that is, homophobia should be unacceptable to any rational person who can think for themselves. Homophobia is ugly, vile and should not be be tolerated. If Kathryn chooses to present a different viewpoint, she shouldn't be surprised when she experiences a backlash.

      There's an old adage that would fit well here, but I can't quite recall it... Something to do with dislike of heat and avoiding kitchens...

      Delete
  2. Look. You say you don't hate gay people, and you say that you're not afraid your children will become gay by watching it. You seem to acknowledge that being gay is not a choice.

    These are all good things!

    Because of that, I'm more inclined to believe you when you say you don't hate gay people. Your italicized arguments in the original post show that you're well aware of the arguments on both sides!

    So you're not a hate-filled bigot. However, I do think you need to let go of your concerns over same-sex marriage. I don't see how there's anything Christian about forbidding people that love each other to marry, no matter what gender they may be. I could quote the Bible at you all day about this, but I'm sure I don't need to - you already know that unconditional love is the most powerful part of God.

    God loves everyone, regardless of (or because of) how different we all are. There's no reason to believe that He would want to forbid people from marrying who love one another. Why should it only be between a man and a woman? The Bible says many things that everyday Christians don't choose to follow, so why is marriage such a big deal?

    You seem like a smart person, and I am sorry that you've received so much backlash over this - but I think you know that opposing gay marriage is not the right thing to do.Even if you don't, you must know that it's a losing battle. Mainstream society is no longer dominated by traditional Christian doctrine. The amount of hatred you've received on this post must be evidence of that.

    In short... You're not full of hatred, and you don't deserve the kind of backlash you've received, but I do think you should rethink your ideas about marriage - not based on what the Church says, but on what you, as a rational and loving person, believe.

    That's all. I'm grateful to you if you read this far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gays can get wed in every single state of the Union. No state has or has ever had a law against it. Your statement about "forbidding people that love each other to marry" is true when applied to incest or polygamy, which I guess you must be in favor of, but not to gays.

      Instead, the gay marriage debate is about whether when gay people have a wedding the government has to treat their relationship precisely the same as when a man and a woman get married, including calling it by the same word and applying exactly the same laws.

      Delete
    2. Allowing gay marriage the same meaning as traditional marriage, is not only one of the biggest social experiments in history but changes the VERY MEANING of marriage to those of us that were married under the terms that it's between a man and a woman--something that I for one hold sacred. How can we as a society be so quick to change something that we have no idea the gravity of its effect on us and the future of this world?
      Furthermore, When you take the necessity of both sexes out of the equation of marriage it negates their necessity as equal partnership in the bearing and rearing of children. That is monumental, and something that you cannot just change--(the necessity of both sexes in bearing children) no matter what your other views are on the marriage relationship.

      Delete
    3. Unknown, exactly how does the fact that two people of the same gender being allowed to marry alter the state of your marriage in any way? If the answer that is solely intellectual or emotional, I think that says more about you then anyone else.

      Delete
    4. Dear misdirected mormon lady, you helped me understand Narcississtic Personality Disorder even more with your hallucinations and dysfunctional analysis of all the "hidden gay messages" ...... Wow. Mental Illness is fascinating. So I want to Thank You for helping me learn more about your disorder and others like you. Big Hugs and Lots of Unconditional Nonjudgemental but very observant LOVE from one of God's children whom you have chosen to judge and condemn. Have a lovely day. <3

      Delete
    5. Your sarcasm and insults are so unwarranted. Is this the attitude that being pro-gay gives people?

      Delete
    6. Wow...now that was sarcastic, mean, and insulting. Just because Kathryn doesn't agree with your lifestyle doesn't mean she hates you and and I found nothing she said hateful or insulting. But you on the other hand.... is this what most pro gay people are really like?

      Delete
  3. Hey, since you closed comments on your Frozen post, I figured this would be a good place to call you a knuckle-dragging imbecile.

    You're a knuckle-dragging imbecile.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Careful, Carlos, your knuckles are dragging.

      Delete
    2. His knuckles are dragging? I'm not concerned about his.

      I'm concerned about the young children this woman is going to teach this ridiculousness to. I understand everyone has an opinion, but someone should not be expressed, this being one of them.

      The shear fact this woman has put so much effort into transforming a beautifully created Disney film, based slightly off the fable 'The Snow Queen' by Hans Christian Andersen, into a movement to "brainwash" the simple minds of society.

      If she has come to the conclusion that the message behind 'Frozen' is to accept those who live a homosexual lifestyle, someone needs to slapped upside the head. 'Frozen' is a tale showing hundreds and thousands of little girls, that true love isn't just finding your soul-mate. True love is family, and what you sacrifice for them.

      It's a sad day when you cannot look past your own religious beliefs, and maybe consider that the human being standing in-front of you has the same heart and soul inside them. They were made by God as well and deserve happiness in their life, to be able to marry the person they love.

      Delete
    3. I'm more concerned about the children who learn that it's ok to wish physical violence upon those who disagree with us.

      Delete
  4. I agree with the message of this post and the previous post. To the people who say that movies "don't have secret agendas" you are completely clueless to how Hollywood works. I study film and any real student of film would tell you every film has some sort of agenda whether it be blatantly obvious or not.Personally I see how the message of "Frozen" can be used for a pro-gay agenda but, of course, as some others have said the film's message can apply to multiple things. But as Mrs. Skaggs has shown, she is not the only one to see this as one of the conclusions of the film's message. Just because a personal disagrees with a certain life style doesn't mean the person hates the people who are active in that lifestyle. For those that say Christians don't necessarily believe homosexuality is a sin; then that is your choice, but according to the teachings of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon it is. You are picking and choosing what to agree with when it comes to the message of Christ, while that is your freedom to do, is not what God and Christ wants us to do. For those that have said Mrs. Skaggs is teaching hate and then went on to mock and revile her for her position. You are hypocrites. You speak of not hating but your posts are full of hate themselves. You have your opinion and so does she. SImply disagree and move on, you don't have to attack her for her thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, too. Well said.

      Delete
    2. Very well said! Kathryn does not deserve any of the hate and name calling and I totally agree that because you disagree with a lifestyle does not mean you hate those in that lifestyle. I actually found nothing she said hateful. She has a daughter who has same gender attraction who is also married to a man, has children and is living the LDS values she was taught and belives in. I think people with LDS or Christian values who have been a part of being insulting to Kathryn or the many others with similar concerns, should really try to see the good and worthwhile messages they may need about their own values and how they may be a victim of the very thing she is concerned about...the normalization and acceptance of that which is wrong according to the gospel.

      Delete
    3. So, you're in favor of people lying to themselves in order to please some magic man who's most likely not even real, silverfinch? Why should rules from a book that is sacred to a minority of people be forced upon the majority who do not believe in it?

      Perhaps if you could provide any reputable scientific evidence on the veracity of either the Bible or the Book of Abraham, I would lend your position more credence.

      Delete
  5. I appreciate you and your blog. I haven't seen Frozen and do think society does undermine values, but we see that in EVERY sitcom, show, and media article. We live in a weird time where people can say whatever they want without consequence, therefore, they say whatever and be as mean as possible whether they believe it or not. Argue and debating with a lot of idiot posters is impossible. I try it with just generic topics such as sports and still logic and understanding is completely devoid from the debate. I've been thinking a lot about these people (bloggers, commenters, posters, internet users) and a scripture that's been on my mind is John 1:5 "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." I don't know if same-sex marriage is a battle worth fighting or even posting about. But the irony of the darkness it stirs is the same agrument "your a bigot," in the process those who throw out that word are bigots as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree that there is no excuse for attacking and demonizing someone merely for having opposing views. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, and I'm sorry for the backlash you have received.

    That being said, with all due respect, I just reread that post, and you come out with guns blazing. Maybe you didn't mean to come across that way, but the language you use is quite aggressive.

    "If you are seriously clueless as to what I'm talking about then it is imperative, particularly for morally minded parents, that you read this post and open your eyes to the homosexual agenda."

    (In reference to the video of the twin girls singing "Let it Go") "While most watching this video, likely found it adorable, I shed tears."

    "it is apparent that the very best talent, within the industry, was called upon...in order to woo its intended audience, parents, into a frozen-state, which would then allow liberalism to indoctrinate children."

    "When mainstream society comes to the point where it celebrates that which is contrary to the commandments...taught in a movie presumably made for children, by awarding it the highest accolades within its culture, and good parents don't perceive it, but rather endorse it unwittingly, we are in serious trouble. And you can bet that those we have to thank are laughing themselves all the way to the bank, while mocking the religious ignorant."

    "If good parents fail to accept that progressivism is strongly behind the entertainment industry, then we risk being, unknowingly, undermined as parents. Coupled with the power of media, and social media, to advance much of what is contrary to Christian values, by brilliantly marketing their message, as popular, inviting our aid as Christians, we also fail society."

    "If you feel you've been duped by the surface story of the movie Frozen, try not to feel too bad."

    Words like clueless and indoctrinated have a well-established negative connotation, while words like duped and contrary, as well as phrases like "mocking the religious ignorant," "If good parents fail to accept," and "I shed tears" are negative by definition.

    When you consider such language, as well as the subtext of urging parents to open their eyes to the Gay Agenda, it is nearly impossible not to infer an attitude of contempt for the movie--your clarifications notwithstanding.

    But if that really wasn't your intention, you're not the first person to express yourself poorly. Too many people in this world don't understand that what we say in our writing doesn't count for much if we're not careful with how we say it. And I'm not talking about being careful not to offend people. I'm talking about making sure the words you use support what you're trying to say.

    That being said, I hope you have better luck with your next post. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you so much for the disclaimer that you don't have a problem with gays. But your post speaks for itself. Lady, some people are gay. Deal with it. Let it go.

    I feel sorry for your lesbian daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My reaction to your blog post that has recently been so controversial: you can interpret this movie however you would like. My reaction to how you did it: it can create a hostile environment within the church for people who are LGBTQ. The terminology and the picture you depicted of gay people as having a hostile agenda makes it hard for gay people to feel comfortable at church because church members think they seeking to destroy their families and they internalize themselves as somehow being evil as well. Your blog post, in my opinion, reinforces that false idea that promotes fear. My only sincere feedback is the following: realize that the majority of gay people (at least every single one I know) are simply trying to be happy and accepted for who they are, one element of which is being gay. The common idea within the church that gay people are seeking "to destroy the family" and we must "preserve it" from their attack, is harmful to their ability to feel at peace/safe within our congregations. Their attraction to people of the same sex does not exist because they want to destroy the church's definition of marriage, it just is (for many reasons yet to be determined). Perhaps we need to talk about them differently, simple as that. BTW, this is not meant to be hostile comment, just a genuine concern on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kathryn,

    I read your original post on Frozen with my teenager daughter. We saw the movie together and we honestly asked ourselves while discussing your post if this is a possible theme, since neither of us caught that message from our original viewing. We have discussed this together off and on this week as other's have made comments. I did not comment in any of the countless places I saw your posts or rebuttals to your post because I wanted to think and discuss without being reactive.

    I've come to the conclusion that your analysis of this movie most likely is accurate as one likely messages, as are some of the other more positive interpretations with different messages I've read this week. I admire your critical thinking and courage to publish your opinions.

    As I read your follow-up post today, I discovered what it is that I would like to comment upon.
    You said,

    "I believe a progressive element is strongly rooted in all forms of media and intentionally influences culture, in order to normalize that which currently is opposed by mainstream society - often so subtle that most don't detect it."

    This is a true statement. It applies to a number of cultural changes that have become more acceptable over time. That does not only apply to sexual morality but also other societal changes such as honesty vs. dishonesty, the use of violence to resolve differences, and what is viewed as right or wrong.

    However, media such as movies, television and books are intended to be discussed. They bring topics to the surface that allow us to consider ideas and value and whether or not we agree or disagree.

    As parents we have a right and a responsibility to use this change in media to talk openly with our children young and old about the issues as they are presented. If those topics are subtle, they may not be discussed but be automatically accepted or ignored.

    As our family personally chooses media, we may watch shows that present subtle or not so subtle content that may present values different from our own. However, we always discuss in an open manner. (i.e. My daughter did not agree with your interpretation of Frozen). I'm a movie talker, as a result, so we watch a lot of movies at home for this very reason.

    In our society today, part of our "progression" (if we are becoming more progressive in our thinking) needs to include the ability of each of us to be able to openly analyze, critique and discuss our opinions and beliefs with respect and civility toward each other. A different opinion does not mean nor should it be interpreted as hate of someone holding that opinion or belief.

    Constantly charging our rhetoric with emotion decreases our ability to thoughtfully consider different perspectives and opinions and increases the need of an individual to quickly take one side or the other of an issue, polarizing us and pitting us against each other. It is our use of emotion directed at people, not the beliefs themselves, that do that.

    Thank you for expressing yourself and your opinions in a way to invite discussion on this topic. The example itself highlights the important value of free speech and the responsibilities that come with that freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kathryn . . . I want to express that I admire you considerably. Way to get back on the horse . . . I had to go back and review some of the comments from the previous post and I found those who took the time to share contrasting opinions in a well thought out manner very interesting. I want to applaud all of them who responded positively with a dissenting opinion.

    Then I want to address the huge number who appear to have left their manners at home, and showed their own personal lack of propriety and education by responding only with lewdness and vitriol . . . as the hate mongers that they are. I can only guess that their mothers and their teachers taught them better, but they choose to come across as uneducated hate mongers.

    Such are the disadvantages and blessings of social media in this age of technology. It's the easy road to take the low road and respond in such a manner, a manner that we would never have the audacity to do in a personal face to face conversation.

    I still applaud you for being willing to stand up for what you believe in, in the face of apparent dissension. And that is the blessing of widely read social media in this age of technology. I know I plan to continue to read and enjoy your perspective.

    Kristin

    ReplyDelete
  11. Regardless of any disagreement with your last post I've had, I am still in awe of your strong ethics and willingness to stand, very publicly, for what you believe is right. The Church needs more people like you. I can't stand behind *any* form of hate and what the haters did to you was uncalled for (I saw some of the posts on Reddit, for instance). Don't let them get to you, and keep standing up for what you believe is right Kathryn!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm sorry you have gotten so many mean comments. I don't see this movie as portraying a gay agenda although now that you point it out of course I can see it. There are many movies you can find that message if you're looking for it. I do see mNy great messages in this movie and that's what I plan on focusing on. I appreciate your thoughts and not being afraid to express them. Those who chose to take your thoughts in a negative way have their own issues and need to attack the ones that don't deserve it. Thanks for sharing and standing up for what you believe in. Not sure why all these non Mormons even read your post when they know they won't like what they read and don't agree with our Mormon life style. Those types of people you just have to block out and LET it go :) don't let them get you down!

    ReplyDelete
  13. You're not doing Mormonism any favors.I know I don't when I show my imperfections or swear when someone makes me mad in traffic. But at least I know what my imperfections are. You clearly do not. You should change your blog name to "A Judgmental Self-Righteous Mormon". But then again, church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. I go to the hospital often as I'm a sinner. I hope you're on a different floor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound pretty judgmental and hostile towards Kathryn Skaggs. You should try to be more loving and accepting of her.

      Delete
    2. I agree, the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Why then exclude the sinner Kathryn Skaggs? She's as much in need of the Atonement as anyone else. I don't think she's "self-righteous," but let's say for a moment that she is — why is the sin of self-righteousness so monumentally worse that we can freely, harshly, and self-righteously condemn those who commit it? Your comment, "I hope you are on a different floor," indicates that you don't feel that there is room for you both — what does that reveal about how you see those who sin differently than you do?

      Delete
    3. I didn't exclude her. She is in need of the Atonement like the rest of us. I, as a fellow sinner, just wouldn't want to be around someone like her. And I have to be - every Sunday the likes of her are crawling around the "hospital". Last Sunday, someone equated multiple piercings as part of the destruction of the family unit. Piercings? Really? I spoke up and said IF my active LDS father had 10 piercings in his face but chose not to be physically abusive and a narcissistic bully, he would have been a better father than his piercing free face and abusive, narcissistic modus operandi that he was. So yes, my patience for the nit-picking and negative over reaching like Sister Skaggs' ridiculous interpretation of a great movie with positive messages (I'm not gay and I saw myself and struggles all throughout the movie! Guess I'm gay though....who knew?) is at a new low.

      Delete
  14. I think blogger might have eaten my previous comment! Anyway, just want to say I appreciate how bold and brave you always are. Keep it up. I appreciate you voice and your opinion on every thing.

    I also want to make one comment in regard to something Ninj4 stated in his comment about love and gay marriage. Yes, the Lord does love all of us, and has commanded that we love one another. However that does not excuse us from following His law and the commandments. The Lord's standard for morality, chastity and family relations is put forth in Genesis chapter 1, and has never been changed, and is repeated throughout scripture and by modern apostles and prophets. That is that sexual relations are to be had within the marriage covenant, which is always between one man and one woman. (I know the logical argument to this is what about polygamy ... but even then, it's one man and one woman in a relationship, not one man with all of his wives at once).

    Elder Dallin H Oaks, gave a talk called "Love and Law" in the October 2009 General Conference. He states, "The love of God does not supersede His laws and His commandments, and the effect of God’s laws and commandments does not diminish the purpose and effect of His love". The link to the whole talk is here: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/love-and-law?lang=eng

    Yes, God loves us, but also has given us commandments as a sign of his love for us. Kathryn boldly stands up for those commandments, no matter what. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but she didn't speak out against sexual relations. She targeted a movie promoting self-worth and overzealously warped it into promoting a lifestyle. And why?

      She fears the movie is [secretly] working to normalize a homosexual lifestyle rather than condemn it, but the lifestyle in question is a lifestyle that is sanctioned by the LDS church. Only the sexual relations are not.

      Had she made the clear distinction the only thing she did not approve of is same-sex sexual relations, I bet much of the vitriol could have been avoided. However, doing so would also have rendered her blog nonexistent since there is nothing in the movie Frozen to draw from. No where does the movie even slightly promote sexual relations of any kind. Same-sex, married, unmarried, or otherwise.

      I do not approve of all the distasteful comments. But, when you write that you have no problem with gays or their respectful and rightful place in society, then spend a long and intricate blog flagrantly attacking anything (up to and including individual words that have no definition or even historical connotation related to homosexuality) because they hint--or possibly may even hint somewhere down the line--that accepting those with same-sex attraction is normal or acceptable…

      It's easy to see how people were confused enough not to realize she was only attacking same-sex sexual relations (which is the sin) and not the homosexual lifestyle (which is not a sin), or even same-sex marriage (which technically is not a sin either).

      Delete
    2. Many are beginning to see that irrational same-sex marriage bans based on vile animus, hate and prejudice simply do not pass constitutional muster. Much like the historical personal views of every caring, thoughtful person who just happened to hold deep and strong personal views on where African Americans should sit on public transportation, who they should marry, or their use of separate drinking fountains and educational institutions. The defense and support of Jim Crow laws are similar to same-sex marriage bans today, and most likely undeserving of respect or tolerance when it comes to civil marriage and public accommodations law discrimination. The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” Awad v. Ziriax 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012).
      In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu: “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of a religion who considers their doctrine my master. I want the full menu of rights.”

      Delete
  15. As a blogger myself, I have realized that rare is the experience when our readership changes our perceptions and ideas, no matter how absurd, ridiculous and outrageous they may be. My opinion of the absurdity of your perspective, is just that, my opinion. Just as your analysis of Frozen is your opinion. However, I do not share your opinion; I find much to contradict your opinion and point-by-point analysis and I found myself spending a lot of time explaining to my non-LDS friends, how the tenants of my faith are not shared in that post, nor do they represent the doctrine and theology I believe. Frankly, I really become irritated when I have to spend time undoing misperceptions of my LDS faith caused by such ridiculous commentary. Posts like yours on your analysis of a perceived idea of gay-agenda promotion do more to bring distance to the truth than actual assisting in sharing our faith. I will exhale now, carry on and pray that maybe this experience will cause you to think twice. I once knew an counselor who reminded me that attention seeking behavior seeks attention, whether its positive of negative. They just want attention. You got mine for 15 minutes, but now I bid you adieu, go well and pray that you have been able to hear beyond the "haters" hating and listen to what they are truly saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am always a little disappointed when I see a Mormon use such harsh language towards another Mormon to be more popular with her non-Mormon friends.

      Delete
    2. I pray for all to look for more love than hate and reach out to understand each other. I can be frustrated with having to explain other's silly behavior, even ridiculous. Dialogue is dialogue. Goodness. If you knew me, you would know that popularity has never been on my agenda! I smile.

      Delete
  16. I find it ironic that the same people who want us to judge morals in shades of gray (no right, no wrong) often end up attacking the people they don't agree them with for being unequivocally wrong. In other words, opinions are "black and white", but morals are not?

    As Christians, we believe in Satan as the adversary. Are we, as parents, naive in believing that kids are off-limits to the subtle tactics of Satan? Do we really think that he won't try subtle tactics on our children through cute cartoon songs? If someone is in the "you are too paranoid camp and reading too much into the song "Let it Go", then let's discuss the alternatives. How else do we suggest or propose that Satan will do this? Are kids off limits to him? Is he suddenly going to start playing by rules and attacking everyone else but kids and Disney movies?









    ReplyDelete
  17. You are a very funny lady and you should be very proud of your capabilities as an blogger/author. To avoid this sort of craziness in the future, I think you should just make sure to label these types of posts very clearly as "comedy". It looks like a lot of people actually took you seriously (which is obviously absurd). Unfortunately, although your piece was clearly satire (I mean, what sane person would actually believe all of that stuff?), some people are just too thick-headed and anxious to jump into fight. All of the hullabaloo reminds me of the times that Chinese newspapers have republished articles from the Onion as actual news! Just keep doing what you're doing and people will figure it out eventually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this might be the best comment that was left on either of these articles. Bravo!

      Delete
  18. Kathryn, I don't believe that most honest people think that you are crazy, but there are a few things that you did wrong in your post in my opinion. First off, all coming of age stories speak to people and capture their attention according to their own schemata. You not only basically said that the movie everyone saw was not the movie that they saw, but that your interpretation was it! That is arrogant and biased. Second to that, if you are writing a persuasive paper, you will always lose credibility if you only present the side that you want other people to see and agree with. That is also opinionated and biased. Third to that, I'm back to the arrogant tone of your paper. Every human being is born with the Light of Christ and the ability to discern between good and evil; plus, every human being is entitled to be influenced by the power of the Holy Ghost. But you told us that if we didn't see the themes that you saw, we were clueless. (Whether you wrote those words directly or not, the implication was so strong, and it still is.) This isn't so. We just enjoyed a film for what it was to us, a decent, good, family film which we all interpreted according to our individual attitudes and schemata. Fourth to that, we are not all wrong just because you think you are right. Oh, wait. Basically, it's all the same thing. You came across as biased and opinionated. (Continued in comments)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Now as a fellow Latter-day Saint, I was annoyed at the point-by-point ripping apart of a beautiful work of art that so many enjoyed, including myself. As Christians, we are always supposed to look for common ground and build upon that. I think your post was full of destruction, even if that was not your intent. If you are looking for offense, you are sure to be offensive. That's true. It just happens. And I've been guilty of it before in my own extended family circle, and perhaps in many situations. I can be strongly opinionated, too; but, it is something that we need to learn how to harness and not unleash. But I do believe from your post that you were looking for offense. According to you, in the future, Frozen may be presented as a gay pushing agenda on stage. If that time comes, we will all still have the Light of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost available to us to make the necessary determinations for our own family and our own sphere of influence. If we hold standards for traditional marriage, the Lord will help us make the necessary stands for our own families.

      And I guess that brings me to the point of personal revelation. The prophet is entitled to received revelation for the entire church; the stake presidents for their stakes; bishops for their wards; parents for their families; and individuals for themselves. You may have had an epiphany or some personal revelation for you and your own family. But that's really where your influence stops in this matter. The prophet has asked us not to watch R-rated movies. After that, it is really left to our personal discretion. I have watched some PG-13 movies that are okay and some G movies that aren't. And when we feel things are inappropriate, we can walk out of the theater or turn off the T.V. Sometimes themes just aren't appropriate for age groups. For instance, when I took my children to see The Lord of the Rings, I could tell by the first few minutes that my youngest shouldn't see it; so, we got permission to switch theaters and watch another movie, while the older ones enjoyed the first.

      It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword. But when people perceive that the pen is being used as a weapon, you can be sure that many will draw. I am sorry for the terribly nasty things people have said; but, you need to realize that they felt personally attacked by the post you wrote. I think when you have a little time to heal and process, you will see that not only were their responses not okay, but your post probably was not okay either. My own blunders, when my intents were good and my motives criticized, have been what has hurt me the most. We are all just in the process of learning and growing. I hope that you will be able to write good, constructive, repairing posts in the future.

      Delete
  19. It is about people who are different. It does not imply homosexual. It could be a physical deformity or autism or any characteristic of a person that is unusual. Yes it is about accepting others that are different but saying it is only one kind of difference is reading too much into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the gay community that is embracing Frozen and "Let it Go" as the coming out of the closet movie. These articles (linked above in Kathryn's post), show that they embraced it and called it out as gay themed well before Kathryn ever did. Interesting and ironic that they didn't get in "trouble" for embracing it in the first place, but the minute that Kathryn called it out, she was berated for it. I find that incredibly ironic and hostile on their part.

      Delete
    2. Slinky, I really don't understand this whole "Gay community" entity you speak of. There is no unified, agenda seeking community that all gay people belong to. Much like not all straight people belong to some unified community that follows each other around and agrees or disagrees with things. There are individuals who express their opinions as individuals, whom then get labeled like this and it shows a clear lack of understanding.

      Delete
  20. Well done, Kathryn. As I'm sure you know, opposition to truth and good is only getting stronger and stronger. I agree with you 100% on this post. I appreciate your faith and strength in the face of so much adversity. Keep doing what you're doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps that opposition to the "truth" is getting stronger because more and more people are realizing that it's not the truth. What goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults, who are not you, is none of your business, or Kathryn's.

      Delete
    2. My concern would be with the pride of people. Are we so willing to claim the opposing view is that which is wrong, rather than possibly look at our own view as being wrong? Certainly there is just as much, if not more vitriol and oposition toward "homosexual lifestyles" from people of faith, and sometimes it too is cleverly disguised.

      Delete
  21. Many Mormons believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a court decision seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it!

    "Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”-Judge Arenda Wright Allen

    Abraham Lincoln-“It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others shall have.”
    Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is this courts power, they and all others shall have.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think your treatment is entirely appropriate, given the outrageous inappropriateness of your bigotry. You can hide behind it with "religious liberty" language all you like, but your homophobic views and justifications for persecuting gay people are on par with the liturgical justifications for slavery 150+ years ago in the South. I only hope you live another 50 years to see your offspring become much more enlightened than their bigoted parents and church...like the rest of America

    ReplyDelete
  23. Would the Mormon Jesus agree or disagree with this as being Christ like?

    The 2014 Episcopal message from the National Cathedral.

    By Rev Jerry Hall

    "I’m old enough to remember a time when Christian churches, including our own Episcopal Church, segregated its churches and actively participated in racism. I’m old enough to remember the ordination of women movement, when many in our church found ingenious theological arguments to deny women leadership roles and so promoted sexism. In its wisdom, the church came to its senses and labeled both racism and sexism as sinful. And now we find ourselves at the last barrier—call that barrier homophobia, call it heterosexism. We must now have the courage to take the final step and call homophobia and heterosexism what they are. They are sin. Homophobia is a sin. Heterosexism is a sin. Shaming people for whom they love is a sin. Shaming people because their gender identity doesn’t fit neatly into your sense of what it should be is a sin. Only when all our churches say that clearly and boldly and courageously will our LGBT youth be free to grow up in a culture that totally embraces them fully as they are."

    "Fifteen years ago this month, Matthew Shepard was killed in Laramie, Wyoming. Three years ago last month, Tyler Clementi committed suicide in New York City. Matthew was 21 when he died, Tyler 18. Both young men were gay. "We here at the cathedral are taking this weekend both to remember and honor Matthew and Tyler and to commit ourselves to standing with and for LGBT youth."

    "It’s more than tragic—in fact it’s shameful—that faith communities, especially Christian ones, continue to be complicit in putting our children at risk and abetting the attitudes that oppress them, thereby encouraging the aggressors who would subject our children to pain, humiliation, and violence."

    "Young LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't play the red herring suicide card. Matthew Shepard didn't commit suicide because he was gay or bullied. From the Matt Walsh blog "The reality, though still violent and tragic, is different from the fable we’ve been sold. It was ten years ago that ABC ran a story debunking many of the lies surrounding the Shepard case. Their investigation found that the young man was killed by two druggies who weren’t in the throes of homophobic hysteria, but rather meth-induced rage. He was killed because of drugs, not sexuality."

      Please don't jump on this bandwagon and pull this card to blame Christians. "In fact, instances of fake gay bashing and fabricated homophobic ”hate crimes” are so common that I’d need to drag this on for 20 pages just to come close to listing all of the more recent cases." http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/16/lying-coercing-manipulating-defrauding-and-scheming-for-marriage-equality/

      Delete
    2. Slinky, I must apologize, you're exactly right that Matthew Shepard did not commit suicide. In fact, one of Mathews murderers was a LDS priesthood holder.
      "The horrific events that took place shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998 would become one of the most notorious anti-gay hate crimes in American history and spawned an activist movement that, more than a decade later, would result in passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a federal law against bias crimes directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people. Two men, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, abducted Matt and drove him to a remote area east of Laramie, Wyoming. He was tied to a split-rail fence where the two men severely assaulted him with the butt of a pistol. He was beaten and left to die in the cold of the night. Almost 18 hours later, he was found by a bicyclist who initially mistook him for a scarecrow."

      Delete
    3. You missed my point and then kept on going. The Matthew Shepard incident was fabricated as a gay hate crime. He was killed because of drugs, not for being gay!

      Delete
    4. Your facts were wrong, and then you added a conspiracy theory. Sometimes the police report, investigation and court findings of fact are a better source of information. No one is calling for a re-trial, guess there needs to be more than a conspiracy theory to get a new trial, no?

      Delete
  24. Kathryn, yup, haters gotta hate. The left and promoters of gay marriage are the biggest haters in society today. They do not like it when anybody dares to contradict their totalitarian agenda. Reading the comments on your original post is like reading about Two Minutes Hate in '1984.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could apply this sentiment to either side of almost anything. There is plenty of hate from the left and right currently, and both want their totalitarian agenda to rule the day it would seem. Some want their liberal ideas about homosexuality to rule, and some want their faith based ideas to rule. And let's be fair, the LDS church with its emphasis on obedience, and fealty to its leadership is no less totalitarian than the left or the rest of the right.

      Delete
  25. Why do people have to misconstrue the simple and innocent meaning in a childrens movie? I have not seen Frozen yet (I will, I love Disney), but cmon' it's a kids movie. Accepting yourself and seeking acceptance from others for who you are has always been a struggle since the beginning of time whether or not you are gay or straight ( and I'm straight), but I'm just saying to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kathryn:

    You of all people should know what gays go through in their youth, you know a few, and that words have meaning and that words hurt. All of my gay friends, (there are many), have confided to me that they all, to a man, in their youth suffered depression, self loathing and thoughts of suicide even though they hadn't been acting on their attractions. Many of them faithfully served full time missions. Words hurt, and your words, yes, your words at some generalized and hidden gay agenda cause great HURT!

    You stated that you oppose only one facet of the gay agenda, that of same-sex-marriage, yet you pillory a children's movie that, while it may (debatable) have a theme of acceptance of homosexuality, had not one iota of any implication that it favored redefining marriage, none! Insofar as favoring acceptance of homosexuality, you and I both as faithful LDS members, we and our Church officially favor that!! Our Church officially recognizes that homosexuality is not a sin, and that IT IS NOT A CHOICE. Yes, your Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints OFFICIALLY recognizes this. If you don't know where to find this, then you have no business speaking about homosexuality all while representing that you are a faithful member.

    As a follower of Christ you leave much to be wanting. Let it be said that it was a non-believer, a Samaritan who sprang into action to help the man who had been beaten and robbed, while the Priest and the Levite (a Temple worker) followed the established order and walked on the other side doing nothing. You are as the Priest and the Levite. Yes you may be faithful, but you appear to have no concept of what it means to love your neighbor as the Samaritan did. We live with these gay people amongst us who have been bullied, persecuted, and oppressed for their entire lives. Many have committed suicide and yet you offer not a hand of support, not even a word of encouragement, not even a "we love you just as you are", nothing, other than your hurtful words in opposition to acceptance. You offer them words that “acceptance” as depicted in a children's movie is something to be shunned and rejected by the rest of us. This is not doing "more good one day at a time". It is not doing any good. It is not being well behaved, nor is it even being a follower of Christ.

    In sum, if you wish to oppose same-sex-marriage, then oppose that and stick to opposing those things that promote that specific agenda, while at the same time offer your helping hand of Christianity to those who seek acceptance for being who they are, just as your and my Church teaches us we should. (Remember, it's not a sin and it's not a choice, our Church's words). MAKE an effort to educate people about homosexuality, that it is not a sin, that acting on it outside of marriage is a sin, just as it is with all sexual activity regardless of orientation. Above all STOP the oppression and hurtful words of rejection, shunning and humiliation!

    Your brother in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  27. Maybe the writers of the movie did have a gay agenda.
    And maybe the movie was just about a girl with powers that she couldn't control and when she almost killed someone she loved very much she decided to try to suppress it and hide it and then ran away out of fear when it was discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ma'am, I just wanted to say: you're representing the church here. And look at the comments, think about what people now think of you and members of the church in general. You've given people an archetype you've given people something more to hate, think about the ones who might've listened to a couple missionaries, and now that might never happen.
    And What did you hope to accomplish by exposing a hidden regime? What were you hoping to gain by sharing this very well studied and thought out article?
    How could you say to people of the same faith; don't feel stupid for not catching it? As if your intelligence surpassed everyone around you? The people who read it and took it the wrong way, as well as those who read the comments from other members cheering you on, will see us as prideful, arrogant and insidious people.
    Taking grandchildren just so you could confirm your suspicions, gossiping with other members, and then this backpedaling article.
    How could you do this?
    I can say this as a return missionary; represent Jesus, not yourself.
    For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but forfeits his own soul?
    I've gotten so much more crap for being mormon because people read this and they now think all members are like you. And I live in Utah for heavens sakes... In the future at least think about what you say before you say it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Don't use your daughter being a lesbian as an excuse for your hate speech. I'm sure you have disowned your lesbian daughter or she has chosen to cut you out of her life. Just because you now want everyone to think you are not homophobic you don't get to hide behind her. True Christians judge no one, that is His job. I am so tired of these blogs with endless rants about things you know nothing about. Thankfully this is the first and last time I will waste my time reading your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I very strongly disagree with Kathryn's side of things, and the article she wrote (I see it much as the way she saw Frozen as a cleverly disguised mechanism, though hers was an anti gay message disguised under the comment of not being anti gay.) It is pretty off base to bring her daughter up and assume anything about the relationship they may have. This will only serve to help confirm a persecution complex as well, and only helps to prove her point in this article.

      Delete
  30. "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."-Billy Madison

    ReplyDelete
  31. The main issue I have with your original post isn't so much that it is anti-gay. It is the assumption made that when a woman dare empower herself, this means she must be lesbian. If a woman doesn't walk off into the sunset with a prince, this means she is lesbian.

    The post isn't only anti-gay, it is anti-woman.

    Stop making assumptions on things about which you know nothing. Just stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. yes, haters gonna hate. and justify their behavior with religious ideology a teaspoon with wet sugar in it would be too sentient to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, see no.

    Your original post wasn't at all about "a way in which you could personally interpret" a movie. It was an accusation. I can, and will if need be, point out dozens of examples in the rant you call an argument to attest to that fact. This response is, in fact, a lie. You can own up to what you were saying, or do what you have done here and simply try and retroactively change what you said.

    You were very clear, the move "obviously" had a gay "agenda." Now, stop for a second and think about that word. Agenda? Should I pull up a definition for you? That you accused the gay community at large of utilizing this movie as a way to "corrupt" youth is a far cry away from what you claim now. People responded the way they did because of what YOU said. Own it or don't own it, but this copout is frankly one of the most childish response pieces I've ever read. Not because your tone here was offensive and condescending (which it was). Not because you fail to own up to the response to your own work (which you do). But because you so blatantly try to pass off a lie about what you said. It's offensive, immoral, and ironic coming from someone building a theme of higher morality.

    Having scrolled through the responses to your article, they were in large incredibly constructive. Most people went out of their way to try and explain to you WHY your paranoid ranting was offensive and objectively wrong. A cursory glance at youtube comments would demonstrate fairly clearly that you received an incredibly well reasoned counter response from the community at large.

    The fact is the "haters gonna hate" study, while interesting, doesn't apply to this article. These people are not "trolls" and they are not "hating" on you because they want to. That subset of the internet exists, and if you read the article you can tell pretty quickly these responders aren't them. So no more excuses on how the masses clearly are just hating you because they want to. That's cheap, and simply another lie. Own up to what you said, or publicly apologize for it. Don't try to back out and hope no one notices what you actually did, God needs better PR than you frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Let me address your clarifications one at a time:

    1. “I did not say that people should boycott Frozen, I liked the film”: Well you say that, but you also said “When good is used to advance evil, we must reject it and state why, if we desire to be light.” Reject it how? We presume by refusing to watch it, by boycott. If you had some other means of rejection in mind, please inform us.
    2. “I do not think the movie Frozen is evil, although I do see a strong gay theme running throughout the film.”: Well you say that too, and I agree, you said it was a good thing being used to promote evil. You said it celebrates what’s “contrary to the commandments.” You complained that it allowed “liberalism to indoctrinate children.” Of course you then went on to explain how the message of “don’t hate yourself for something you can’t change” somehow equates to “pro gay marriage.”
    3. “I never said that children who watch Frozen will become gay.”: True again. You just said they’d become filthy accepting liberals through indoctrination.
    4. “I do not believe people who advocate for SSM are evil.”: No, you just said that we, like the movie, promote evil. I’m sure you see a difference there, but I don’t.
    5. “I never said that Christian parents who didn't see a gay message in Frozen are stupid.”: No, you called them “clueless.”
    6. “I am aware that others see different themes in Frozen, which are positive.”: But it’s all a big plot by the liberal propaganda machine. Those OTHER messages are accidental, but the one I saw about the gays is intentional and insidious.
    7. “I believe a progressive element is strongly rooted in all forms of media and intentionally influences culture, in order to normalize that which currently is opposed by mainstream society - often so subtle that most don't detect it.”: Considering your statement in #6, is it possible you’re just paranoid and obsessed with SSM?

    And a bonus gay stereotype you threw into your post at random: “If you are seriously clueless as to what I'm talking about then it is imperative, particularly for morally minded parents, that you read this post and open your eyes to the homosexual agenda, and the principles advanced to promote it, that undergird Frozen, which is why it was written for Broadway and will indubitably be a hit - mark my words!” Yes yes. All gays love the musical theater.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I caught the same flack when I tried to boycott Disney over Ellen Degenerate years ago. politically correct, socially acceptable-----same as they thought in Noah's time. Remember what happened to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember how all the animals fit onto a boat? That definitely happened in reality. Thanks for reminding us.

      Delete
    2. I do not agree with Ellen's lifestyle, but she's a person as worthy of love and respect as Kathryn, you, and I. Calling her "Ellen Degenerate" merely because we disagree with how she lives her life is as bad as people calling Kathryn an "imbecile" because they disagree with her blog post.

      It's inappropriate and should stop.

      Delete
    3. Jeffrey Thayne, thank you for all your comments.

      Delete
  36. @AnonymousFebruary 21, 2014 at 4:36 PM

    "Remember what happened to [the people in Noah's time]?" Nothing because Noah demonstrably didn't exist?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Regardless, there's no justifiable reason that anyone should treat another person, whose opinion they don't agree with, as subhuman."

    Great, so you support same sex marriage now?

    ReplyDelete
  38. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, wellbehavedmormonwoman.

    The film, however, simply does not provide the evidence for your thesis.

    You have to twist your philosophy to the evidence, not the evidence to your philosophy.

    The evidence is not their for your thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  39. My mama always used to say, "if a person has to tell you they're a Christian, they probably aren't doing a good job at it."

    With that in mind, I say to you: "If a woman has to tell you she doesn't hate gays, she's probably not doing a good job showing it."

    Be good to people; know their struggles.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good grief, people! Get over it. One person posted her opinion of one movie, and you all just lose your minds...

    ReplyDelete
  41. You use "Christian" a lot in this post, I thought you were Mormon, not Christian. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that they are two different religions. So are you a Mormon speaking out to Christians? Because your blog implies that you are writing to Mormons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mormons are Christians. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ. He died for our sins. He is the center of our religion. I am Mormon. I am a Christian.

      Delete
  42. I have to comment. First of all, I have spent the majority of the evening reading the comments from your last blog post. While yes, there were some who were just "hating", the vast majority of the comments were well thought out, reasonable differences of opinion. To simply write them off as haters completely ignores very valid concerns people have with how you represent a beautiful religion. I am a convert to the church, I joined 20 years ago, and it was the best decision I have ever made. I married in the temple, and am now raising my children in the church. However, I am still the only member on my side of the family, my brother, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc. are all not members. I try to live my life in a way that reflects my love for the gospel, and hope that one day, maybe they will develop their own testimonies. In the last 20 years I have had many questions about the church from my family, and many of the questions stem from things they hear about in the media or read on the internet. I really don't think you realize the damage blog posts like this can do to those just starting to investigate our faith. If you want to blog about anything at all, that is your right, but please do not claim to represent Mormons in general. I end up having to answer questions like "Can Mormons watch Disney movies then?" If you are going to proclaim to be a "well-behaved Mormon woman", act like one. Be loving and kind and charitable and spread the Light of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm so discouraged by this new post. I posted a comment on your last article, and although I disagreed with you, I was kind and respectful. I truly thought you would see your mistake, gain some humility, and move forward. Nope, you didn't.

    Instead, you became a victim, stating "haters gonna hate." I'm sorry but majority of the comments were just disagreeing and giving you examples of why you were incorrect. That is not hating.

    If you just look at the comments coming from LDS people, majority did not agree with you. Instead of you thinking, "hmmm, maybe I'm off" you instead come off as self-righteous. I don't believe in treating you poorly, but I see why so many are concerned with you being a "voice" for Mormons.

    I truly don't want you hurt over this, but humility could take you further than your current approach....

    ReplyDelete
  44. Someone has way to much time on her hands... My family and I I loved the movie - saw it as a strong story of a family's love for one another... You really need to get a life...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you intentionally ignore Satan's evil and the movies sub-conscious messages targeting young children for recruitment into the homosexual life-style? I prefer to protect my children from Satan's influences.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear. You sum up homophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear of something usually because of ignorance. You might find your children would benefit more from a bit of real education than your 'protection' which is infinately more dangerous and damaging and real than an imaginary demon's influence

      Delete
  45. The only one in all of this who is being hateful is you. Your detractors have been very polite, but people who are brainwashed and have disgusting, bigoted beliefs like to call "HATER" when they get called out for, well, being a big darn hater. If you're going to share your bigoted beliefs, at least be woman enough to stand by them. Your church should be ashamed of you, but knowing what I know about Prop 8, you're probably getting lots of high-fives and pats on the back from your fellow bigots. Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You are phenomenally brave and strong. It is not hate to disagree. Thanks for sharing. It made me brave enough to share this.
    http://jovialjuice.com/frozen-perhaps-we-can-open-our-eyes-and-see-the-whole-picture/

    ReplyDelete
  47. WBMW, I just want to send you my support. I don't feel that your posts have been hateful of gays. But what you and I both see is a trend to not only normalize homosexual behavior, but to crucify any who disagree with the LGBT in any way. I'm sure that you, like I, feel compelled to love everyone, despite their sexual preferences, religion, race, or political stance. But we still are bound by our fire beliefs to stand up for what we think us right. I did this recently about a different issue, in the comment section of a popular blogger, and received unbelievably hateful comments in return on my blog. It's always shocking to see how much hate and anger other people harbor. These are the very people who will accuse you of gays, but then feel justified in hating you. But I always remind myself that "ad hominem" attacks are used when the person doesn't have a better argument. Sadly, as our nation's moral compass continues to go off kilter, we will find more and more resistance to traditional values. But what can we do? I'm sure that you, like me, feel you must continue to stand up for what you believe to be right, even though "haters gonna hate". Just know you aren't alone. Hang in there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, I hate auto correct.....I hope you can make sense of my badly corrected comment. Lol

      Delete
    2. re: ".....bound by our fire beliefs to stand up for what we think us right." OK, got that, but PLEASE answer the question raised below... Whose religious belief should be codified into our nations civil marriage law, and why?

      Delete
    3. re: ".... nation's moral compass continues to go off kilter, we will find more and more resistance to traditional values."
      History provides insight. Traditional values included the belief that women should not have the right to vote or that interracial couples should not have the right to marry. We only need to look at traditional voting and how it was "re-defined" when women were granted the right to vote. Voting is no longer voting, its meaning has been lost. Voting meant single gender and then it was "re-defined" and includes both genders. We now have genderless voting. Look how marriage was re-defined when bi-racial couples were granted the right to marry.

      History shows us how voting and marriage was defined through excluding people. Sadly, the Supreme Court ruled that traditional values are not legal nor constitutional justification to continue the practice of discrimination.

      What is a faith based person supposed to do?

      Delete
    4. Kathryn is an embarrassment to the church and her family. Her daughter is gay and is very hurt. But that is okay.. because her daughter is just sinning. and sinning is bad. Judging others and making those that don't believe as we do is okay. (sarcasm intended) I am a member of the church and in good standing and I think that Kathryn is way off base. Her next blog should be an apology without excuses. signed, A Well Behaved Insulted Mormon who loves gay people, and the bigots that mock them AND calls it like it is..

      Delete
    5. There was no homosexual behavior (sex) in the entire movie, nor did it advocate such. In fact, there was no sex at all! The theme was one of acceptance period, which we all as Mormons and Christians should follow. The second great commandment is to love thy neighbor.... no exceptions (INCLUDING GAYS)!

      Delete
  48. The question still remains, gay agenda or not, whose religious belief should be codified in civil marriage law?
    State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must ALSO respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

    In Lawrence. v. Texas, the Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The state regulates marriage (e.g., consanguinity, not more than 2, age of consent etc.) and treats marriage as a contract issue (support of children, spousal support, visitation etc.)

    Race, gender, and sexual orientation (when was the last time you changed your's?) are regarded as immutable characteristics for most people. The state simply does NOT have a valid interest in discrimination based on immutable characteristics. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply NO right at all.
    For example, the United States Supreme Court has made their legal determination 15 times since 1888. Please note the last example of legal definition is the marriage of two American women:

    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888)
    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)
    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)
    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971)
    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974)
    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)
    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977)
    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)
    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)
    M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996)
    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)
    United States v Windsor 570 U.S. (2013)

    In Windsor, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “equal dignity” of the “intimate relationship between TWO people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community. . . .” The government does not have a right to interfere with their rights to file taxes jointly,
    - Same-sex couples have a right to receive benefits under the state public pension system, to adopt or serve as legal guardian of a partner’s child,
    - to receive inheritance protections, and to make medical decisions for a partner. In light of Windsor v. United States, restrictions and disabilities of vile animus imposed on gay and lesbian couples simply CANNOT stand.- The Supreme Court of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "best way for bearing/procreating children" does not have the slightest relevance to civil marriage law. Parental fitness and procreation is an issue for adoption, reproductive and family law. If parental fitness should be a requirement of civil marriage, why ONLY target same-sex couples? Why lay out the legal civl marriage red carpet for opposite-sex felon child molesters, horrific spousal, drug and alcohol abusers? Why not require a college education and a six figure income to get married?

      Why ONLY target same-sex couples for vile animus in marriage law discrimination?
      In other words, some feel that it is perfectly rational to hold same-sex couples and their children morally and legally responsible for any failure of heterosexuals to act in the manner that the state wishes them to behave.

      Delete
  49. I write agendas for my senior team at work. It includes all the points that they wish to cover during their meeting and who is responsible for them. I circulate it and it is agreed by everyone.

    Does anyone have a copy of the Gay Agenda? I mean, when they have their big gay meetings to discuss the "normalisation" of their lifestyles and how to indoctronate the masses, who puts this agenda together? Is there a team of senior gays that decides the agenda a d agrees it with all other gays or is there, like, a gay voldermort who casts an evil spell over everyone?

    No. Sorry, that's clearly just stupid. But seriously, has anyone seen the gay agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  50. That is an excellent question.. I've not seen a copy of the "Gay Agenda" or "Gay Manifesto" either, but I'll kick off an email to following main stream medical, psychological, and sociological organizations to find out. Surely, it must be rational for me to assume that EVERY single one below is infected with the virus called "The Gay Agenda?"

    Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of same-sex couple parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights". These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association,National Association of Social Workers,Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.

    ReplyDelete
  51. When the children of Israel began to follow after the ways of the world in Numbers 25 of the Old Testament, Phinehas courageously takes a stand against it. In Psalms 106:30-31 we see that because of his valiant efforts, the plague was stayed and it was counted unto him for righteousness forevermore. I wonder what kind of backlash he may have received.

    Even though many good people have initially rejected the warnings, many are starting to come around. I believe you are a modern-day Phinehas!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Line Phinehas, the battle before us is fighting the United States Constitutional 5th and 14th due process and equal protection guarantees for each and every American. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights is to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political and religious controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights MUST now be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of our electoral and whims of the political process.

      Delete
    2. May the Proclamation to the world soon be the law of the land...
      God Bless America!

      Traditional Marriage Today, Traditional Marriage Tomorrow, Traditional Marriage Forever!!!

      Delete
    3. The said "Proclamation" is against the law of scripture which is marriage between one man and several women which we still believe and still practice for the deceased and hereafter and which, I might add, is true traditional marriage. You might want to think this though.

      Delete
  52. This is marvellous. I don't believe WBMW is an actual person. This is an internet persona. And it's genius. A fictional woman is making comments on a fictional story based on her ideas from a book full of fictional characters. Like the great big beardy pixie in the sky.

    ReplyDelete
  53. So...The question on everyone's lips is...Is your daughter single? I love an older woman with mom issues, which I'm sure she has.

    See also: Is it really rant-worthy that MUSICAL THEATRE PROFESSIONALS wrote something with gay themes? You do know The Little Mermaid's Ursula was based on a drag queen, right?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Meanwhile the "FROZEN" LDS children continue to be thrown out to live on the streets below. Please, people of faith, consider summer months, rather than the dead cold of winter as a small gesture of reasonable and rational compromise? Doing a little good in this world one day at a time. Ask yourself "What would Jesus do?"

    --------
    Shared via post from PFLAG .....
    "By Marian Edmonds Allen
    My letter to the Editors of the Deseret, Tribune and Standard. Enough is enough. Usually it is one youth every 2 weeks. Not this week.

    To the Editor -

    I am writing to ask Church leaders and members to help with a crisis in Utah. In the past five days, there has been a huge increase in newly homeless youth asking our center for help, directly or through others.
    These youth have some things in common, and some that differ:

    They come from four different counties, Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Cache and Box Elder.

    Each youth is currently attending high school, or trying to find a way to continue attending high school. One slept in the snow in front of her school this week because she had no place to go.

    The youngest is 15 years old.

    Each youth is lesbian or gay.

    Each youth is from a Mormon family.

    There is help to keep families together, regardless, and perhaps ESPECIALLY because of faith. With the support of all of us in Utah, children can be safe, at home. Church leaders and members, please share this message with those you know. Every child deserves a warm, safe home.

    If you need to tell your child to leave his or her home, there are host families through the Safe and Sound Program (SafeandSoundUtah.org), including active Mormons, who will keep your child from sleeping in the snow or being assaulted on the streets. If your family needs someone to talk to, please ask for help, or access information online from the Family Acceptance Project.

    FIVE children in five days. Not acceptable.

    Sincerely,
    Marian Edmonds Allen, BS MDiv
    Executive Director, OUTreach Resource Centers"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Unknown 9:13, I sincerely hope you do not have any children. The danger is not same sex couples raising a child, it is ignorant and uneducated people such as yourself. And you might want to look up compassion at some point. It has more than one syllable but don't let that put you off x

      Delete
    3. I for one would like to see a response from Kathryn to the letter from Marian Edmonds Allen.

      Delete
    4. Yes, you are spot on. If she claims not to be anti gay here is an excellent opportunity to do some good to the gay community and stop young people sleeping on the streets. This is an opportunity to speak out against the LDS haters.

      Delete
    5. People outside of the church don't have the capability to realize how difficult it is to teach children gospel principles once they have given into the will of Satan.

      Delete
    6. Perhaps not but we are educated enough to know that throwing your own child out on the streets is wrong. I'll argue anybody's god over that.

      Delete
  55. I'm sorry you were hurt by the words of some of your commenters. But that should make it painfully clear that WORDS CAN HURT. Your post HURT PEOPLE. When people are hurt, they often respond defensively. That's not surprising on either side of this- you are just human, like your commenters. But in this post, instead of apologizing, you attempt to clarify what you meant by CHANGING your words. Unfortunately, the internet still carries your original post for all to read. I know you think you are standing for truth and righteousness. I respectfully disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Kathryn is an embarrassment to the church and her family. Her daughter is gay and is very hurt. But that is okay.. because her daughter is just sinning. and sinning is bad. Judging others and making those that don't believe as we do is okay. (sarcasm intended) I am a member of the church and in good standing and I think that Kathryn is way off base. Her next blog should be an apology without excuses. signed, A Well Behaved Insulted Mormon who loves gay people, and the bigots that mock them AND calls it like it is..

    ReplyDelete
  57. Kathryn,

    Your own daughter disavows your comments as unChristian and homophobic. I can't imagine what family reunions are like with your own kin. Oh wait. I can. You see - I was a Mormon once. I had to make a choice between institutionalized gay-hate and family. I chose family. Because... Families are Forever(tm).

    ReplyDelete
  58. I don't have much time so I'll skip to the end:

    "..... pointless."

    ReplyDelete
  59. As an active, temple recommend carrying, prophet loving, general conference watching Mormon I am extremely sad and angry that this post and some select previous posts are associated IN ANY WAY with the word Mormon. I am a Mormon woman who does not want the priesthood. I am not a liberal Mormon. Please. Stop. Presenting your personal beliefs as something that is doing anything good for furthering the work in the kingdom of God. Please seriously consider if you are doing good, or if you are doing something harmful. Or consider removing the word Mormon from your blog altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  60. My comment did not make it onto your last post, so here it is:
    "Jesus Christ was a reformer who questioned and rebelled against antiquated doctrine. He questioned often and openly the rules of both his religion and his society.
    I'm sure the Pharisees and the Sadducees believed in their version of absolute morality as well.
    For those parents who think that it is unwise to teach children to question the authorities in their lives, I offer you the Milgram experiment: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

    And I leave this with those that agree with this blog post:

    'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'
    Mahatma Gandhi"

    I would like to add, Ms. Skaggs, that the very term 'gay agenda' is inflammatory and to the reader undermines any of your protests about hating gays.
    Acceptance of gays and legalized ssm have happened in many countries around the globe without adverse social, political, or religious consequences. No one is trying to infringe on your rights or privileges. There are many things that are legal that run contrary to your personal morality and you are free to not indulge in those things.
    The only thing that the LGBT community asks of you is that you not impose your personal view of morality onto those that do not share it just as Muslims do not try to make it illegal for you to eat pork and go outside with out your hair and/or face covered.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Whatever the so called "gay agenda" is (if it even exists.) I'll take it over the "Mormon agenda" any day. It is better to love somebody for who they are, than to be commanded to and forced to love a God or be eternally punished for not doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  62. As a married Christian, I thank God that your point of view on rights for gays and lesbians will be as humiliating to your grandchildren some day as those of previous generations' views on African Americans.

    We now reject the old and new testament views of slavery as being acceptable or moral, despite entreaties that not only are we entitled to take slaves, but that slaves are required to "gladly" serve their masters. We now reject that pigeon's blood is an acceptable cure for leprosy despite the scriptures saying it was to be the last-ditch treatment for someone who had been infected. And so, too, does a majority of the country now reject the hateful, bigoted view that a gay person should be required to spend their life sealed to someone with whom they can never fully connect nor love in the way a spouse deserves to be loved.

    You have wrapped your prejudice in a cross, convincing yourself that your sins are righteousness. But you'll never accept this, nor will you ever change your mind, because you aren't interested in the truth, or in seeking revelation from God. Like those whom Christ condemned, go ahead measuring your tea leaves with precision, count out your tithes to the gram, and polish the veneer of the white washed tomb that is your soul.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I think you hit it on the spot, in your own words, "You have your own agenda". Can't be the agenda of the "Mormon" God I worship. And you are correct, "haters" tend to form in groups, sadly many Mormon (groups) and individuals can't see past their nose. I'm no liberal, but I def. saw this movie and Elsa as someone, anyone who didn't fit the mold finding a way to break free from the pain. I would love a response.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Good to see you've started labeling your own posts as "hate", "hate speech".

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hi Kathryn,

    I saw the same things you did when I watched the movie in early December. I liked the movie overall, but I felt very uncomfortable by some of the subtle themes I saw in it. Afterwards, I searched the internet to find evidence that anyone else in the world saw what I saw, and was confused when I found so many religious people embracing the movie wholeheartedly, particularly the song, "Let it Go."

    I agree with you that Elsa's actions can definitely be interpreted as "coming out" as a gay person. However, I think her actions can have applications for many other inappropriate behaviors that we should not encourage our kids to follow. Allow me to share one idea that I had regarding another negative application I discovered:

    The song "Let it Go" is the worst part of the movie for me, because Elsa is NOT doing something positive at that moment, and she is NOT singing about positive things. Elsa is running away from her family and her responsibilities. She is using her power in a way that is not appropriate or healthy. She has not learned to use her power safely--as a result of her "letting it go" she has caused the countryside to become frozen, has alienated herself from Anna and all her responsibilities in life, and she even produces an ice monster to keep people away from her new lifestyle.

    Elsa sings of there being "no right, no wrong, no rules for me." She condemns good girls and says she is "free." That is not my definition of freedom, and it troubles me that so many good people celebrate this song and its subversive message.

    I think another way to look at Elsa's experience is as follows: We all have a "power" that we are "born" with. It is called the power of procreation. It is a beautiful, sacred, wonderful thing. However, we need to use it in the right way and at the right time. In the language of the scriptures, we need to "bridle" that power. It is perfectly appropriate for our parents and leaders to encourage us to "conceal, don't feel" that power when we are not married. It is good to be a "good girl" and to not use that power before the right time.

    If we were to act as Elsa, we would take that power and "test the limits and break free" and potentially hurt ourselves and others as Elsa did when she unleashed her power inappropriately.

    It was only when Elsa came back to her family and her responsibilities at the end of the film, and Anna sacrificed her life for Elsa, that Elsa learned to use her powers appropriately. She was able to control them and live in society happily with others. Likewise, we need to learn to control our procreative power and use it at the right time and place.

    The best part of the movie was at the end, when Anna sacrificed herself for Elsa. I wish there was a memorable song for that part of the movie that little kids could belt out with all their hearts. The worst part of the movie was at the song "Let it Go." I agree 100% with you that it bothers me when I see so many young children in love with this song. It contains lyrics and a message which I certainly don't want my young daughters to celebrate.

    I am so glad that you had the courage to speak out and share your concerns, and it's sad to see that so many good people are not willing to be more discriminating when it comes to media and especially in what they allow their children to watch. It's scary to see how Satan's messages have infiltrated so much of what we listen to and watch--even our children are not immune from hearing these messages.

    Thanks again for your courage!

    ReplyDelete
  66. The only "gay agenda" that is, ever was, and ever will be, is the FACT that 3-7% of YOUR children are born gay. Across the centuries. Across cultures. Across the globe. And another 10 to 20% swing both ways. The only "agenda" is the one you have, which is clearly not rational. You must have far too much time on your hands. Loon.

    ReplyDelete