Gay Beehive Delivers Prepared Speech in F&T Meeting - Ends as Expected

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK, fair enough. If I missed where she taught a doctrine can you please show me where she taught a doctrine versus sharing her personal feelings?

Sharing feelings that contradict Church Doctrines counts too.

 

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I still feel like you are making assumptions.  She didn't say her parents wrote her testimony.  She said they helped.  Perhaps they read what she wrote and asked her to tone down some of her statements and offered alternative ways of saying things.  The fact that this 12 year old tried for 3 months to do this doesn't really suggest the her parents wrote this out.  

Listen to her entire interview on the podcast I linked to earlier.  While I recognize some people write better then they speak, I'm pretty sure she had a lot of help writing her speech.

[Maestrophil]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Are you prepared to tell you children that you don't love them or accept them as they are?   On any doctrine??

As JLHPROF said - YES!  I will always love them, but I will not accept them if they continue in certain behaviors.  If and when my children engage in inappropriate behavior, I call them on it.  It's called being a parent.  God is our parent and calls us on bad behavior too.  He doesn't say - "you are perfect as you are - keep on getting drunk every day, keep stealing from people, keep lying."  He condemns us when we do, and we stand condemned if we don't repent and change our behavior.  He will not accept us into his presence otherwise.  He CAN'T.  That is LDS doctrine.

 

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK, fair enough. If I missed where she taught a doctrine can you please show me where she taught a doctrine versus sharing her personal feelings?

She is not 'teaching' and can't declare any thing doctrine as such, but really?  You don't understand how expressing what you believe to be true when it flies in the face of LDS teachings is endorsing false doctrine?  I find that hard to believe - you are much too intelligent.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Love and acceptance are NOT the same thing.
I would never say I don't love my child.
I would say (and say repeatedly) that I don't accept all of their actions.

Okay...I understand that.  I have questioned the actions of my own children and love them dearly..but what to do if a whole church and church family decides that acceptance and love is the same thing..and reject your child.?  At what point does your desire to protect..reject..or even defend your child when the their world hurts them like this??

[USU78]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think both you and USU78 are attributing confusion surrounding sexual identity too broadly. You both seem to suggest that it is common for children/young teens to experiment with each other or even "fondle". That doesn't match my experience in the slightest.

From the time I was in kindergarten I was chasing the girls and trying to kiss them. Never the boys. Of course I didn't understand it as sexual identity but the attraction only went towards girls. Zero confusion or experimentation. All of that to say that it seems very reasonable for a 12 year old girl to innately understand her attraction.

I previously asked but didn't see an answer from you. At what age did you realize you were attracted to girls instead of boys? Teens? College?

I ask because I can't understand why you think it is so strange that a 12 year old would understand attraction.

Now you're going to tell us you never had to read Ann Frank in school?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

what to do if a whole church and church family decides that acceptance and love is the same thing..and reject your child.?

That hasn't happened.  It didn't happen in this case.
Is there any indication that this little girl is any less loved by the members of her ward and stake as a result of her doctrinal beliefs not being accepted?

A whole Church and Church family with even a small understanding of the gospel should understand the difference between love of a person and acceptance of every aspect of a person.

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Love and acceptance are NOT the same thing.
I would never say I don't love my child.
I would say (and say repeatedly) that I don't accept all of their actions.

What action of this 12 year old should the parents not accept?  She was expressing that she is gay and that they love and accept her as she is.   There is no action there.  

Now if she does choose to enter a same sex relationship, then the parents will have to then decide if they will accept that action.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by JulieM

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I still feel like you are making assumptions.  She didn't say her parents wrote her testimony.  She said they helped.  Perhaps they read what she wrote and asked her to tone down some of her statements and offered alternative ways of saying things.  The fact that this 12 year old tried for 3 months to do this doesn't really suggest the her parents wrote this out.  

Doesn't matter. I fully believe the handwriting is hers. As her parent I would have said no to this "testimony" instead of yes. They apparently said no at least once. Obviously, I do not know what it originally said before the revisions. I would have written out objectionable parts which are contrary to the gospel. I am sure there have been other people who have stated they were gay at the pulpit, but imho her statement crossed the line in several places.

In my personal opinion the whole issue is quite premature at age 12, and I would not assume my child is gay because he or she expresses some SSA.  But the "issue" is now foisted upon kids at ages too young imho by TV shows, videos, songs, etc.

IMHO to a large extent sex is an issue of thought control, but I concede that the brain is a very complex organ and many factors can influence it.

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Are you prepared to tell you children that you don't love them or accept them as they are?   On any doctrine??

I do love them -- enough not to be satisfied that they remain as they are. I want more for them than that. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Another point that is being totally ignored in the hysteria over her being told to "sit down" and having her mic cut is that the leaders on the stand didn't know where this was going, and how much longer she was going to continue.  This is Savannah and her parent's fault for not warning them ahead of time (understandably), but that is the risk you take when you blindside leaders like that.

After the fact, Savannah can tell us that she just had one more relatively innocuous paragraph to go, but the leaders on the stand didn't know this.  Was she going to start talking about other doctrines she didn't agree with?  Was she going to express her crush on another girl in the ward?  Was she going to veer in another direction that no one could see coming?

Excellent points!

Just curious though why you think it is understandable that the parents didn't warn the bishop ahead of time?  It seems kind of unfair to blindside them like that.  It also seems rather risky (not knowing how the leaders would react) as no one wants their daughter to be publicly humiliated or shamed by leaders.   It seems like letting the bishop know in advance would have been the right thing to do for both Savannah's sake and for the sake of the SP who's ill-prepared response would be mocked and ridiculed all over the internet.

[Maestrophil]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay...I understand that.  I have questioned the actions of my own children and love them dearly..but what to do if a whole church and church family decides that acceptance and love is the same thing..and reject your child.?  At what point does your desire to protect..reject..or even defend your child when the their world hurts them like this??

This is the confusion, and the ultimate point where the two ideals collide in my opinion - in defining what 'acceptance' looks like.  

If gay people and their supporters want LDS acceptance of gay people to mean "we will not say anything negative about choosing to be sexually active as a gay person, and will never discipline you for it." and, "We think the idea of gay marriage is just as valid and righteous as straight marriage."  Then i agree, gays will NOT be accepted in the LDS church anytime soon. So we can end the discussion there.

If however, those same people are OK with 'acceptance' meaning - "We will always treat you with love and kindness.  We love you and want you to be with us and fellowship.  We want to serve you and tend to your needs.  You must understand that a temple recommend, callings, and even saying public prayers, are based on a certain level of compliance with the commandments.  You might not have every right and privilege if your choice is to not keep commandments.  If you are OK with that, and know that those restrictions do not mean you are not loved, then you are always welcome to be here, and we will love you and minister to you." Then we can all move forward together.

 

EDITED to add - BTW, you will notice that that second description of acceptance applies to all members, straight or gay...

Edited June 16, 2017 by Maestrophil

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So it's OK to say something is right as a practice so long as you don't say it's church doctrine. Really? Would you be fine with a polygamist doing that at an LDS church service?

That's not what I said. I said she isn't claiming to teach church doctrine, and she isn't. She is sharing her opinion just like we do on this board every day. I share my unorthodox opinions all the time but that doesn't mean I'm teaching false doctrine. That means my opinions are unorthodox, just like Savannah's are unorthodox.

Quote

JLHPROF-

They did not mess up when they made me to be gay. So you're suggesting that God did mess up?
- I do believe he made me this way on purpose. Was she an accident, did God not make her, or...? What? What's false about that? Can you point to a doctrine that states God did not create gay people gay?
- I believe God would tell me if I was wrong. Well, wouldn't he?
- I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy. She was talking about being married and having a family. Is it impossible for a person to be married and have a happy family as a lesbian? I don't think so.
- I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am. I agree that no one is "perfect". But she's 12. Can't we give her a little break. That's hardly a "false doctrine" worth humiliating her over, is it.

All false according to Church position.

Quote

She stood at the pulpit in an LDS chapel and proclaimed her beliefs that contradicted the LDS Church teachings.
Calling it testimony doesn't make it any less false doctrine.

So when you share an opinion such as Adam/God on this board, are you teaching false doctrine? If you think you are (which I don't) then you are consistent. If you don't think you are teaching false doctrine, then the only difference is location.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oxymoron

You may think that by Nick and Spencer are gay, married (to one another), active in the LDS church, AND members of record.  Simple facts.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

She is not 'teaching' and can't declare any thing doctrine as such, but really?  You don't understand how expressing what you believe to be true when it flies in the face of LDS teachings is endorsing false doctrine?  I find that hard to believe - you are much too intelligent.

She is sharing her unorthodox opinion. That is not the same thing as teaching false doctrine. I believe that for it to be false doctrine she would need to claim it as doctrine, which she doesn't do. She's sharing her thoughts, feelings, and testimony. She's not teaching a doctrinal lesson.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

k

This is the confusion, and the ultimate point where the two ideals collide in my opinion - in defining what 'acceptance' looks like.  

If gay people and their supporters want LDS acceptance of gay people to mean "we will not say anything negative about choosing to be sexually active as a gay person, and will never discipline you for it." and, "We think the idea of gay marriage is just as valid and righteous as straight marriage."  Then i agree, gays will NOT be accepted in the LDS church anytime soon. So we can end the discussion there.

If however, those same people are OK with 'acceptance' meaning - "We will always treat you with love and kindness.  We love you and want you to be with us and fellowship.  We want to serve you and tend to your needs.  You must understand that a temple recommend, callings, and even saying public prayers, are based on a certain level of compliance with the commandments.  You might not have every right and privilege if your choice is to not keep commandments.  If you are OK with that, and know that those restrictions do not mean you are not loved, then you are always welcome to be here, and we will love you and minister to you." Then we can all move forward together.

 

EDITED to add - BTW, you will notice that that second description of acceptance applies to all members, straight or gay...

Quote

Thank you for your honest and objective view.  I appreciate it..because for all the reasons others might not like my child..this would be the most difficult pain for a parent.

 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What action of this 12 year old should the parents not accept?  She was expressing that she is gay and that they love and accept her as she is.   There is no action there.

Now if she does choose to enter a same sex relationship, then the parents will have to then decide if they will accept that action.

 

Agreed.

What action of the 12 year old should the local lay leadership not accept?
The expression over the pulpit that God sees things differently than the Church.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do love them -- enough not to be satisfied that they remain as they are. I want more for them than that. 

If you had a child that came to you and told you they were gay, would you love and still accept them as a gay person?

How would you react?

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what I said. I said she isn't claiming to teach church doctrine, and she isn't. She is sharing her opinion just like we do on this board every day. I share my unorthodox opinions all the time but that doesn't mean I'm teaching false doctrine. That means my opinions are unorthodox, just like Savannah's are unorthodox.

So when you share an opinion such as Adam/God on this board, are you teaching false doctrine? If you think you are (which I don't) then you are consistent. If you don't think you are teaching false doctrine, then the only difference is location.

You are correct.  Context and venue are important.

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sharing feelings that contradict Church Doctrines counts too.

 

Why?

I'm not saying it's not unorthodox, but that doesn't mean she is "teaching false doctrine". Does every testimony shared in F&T meeting, or every feeling shared in an answer during class need to be correlated? Or can we allow for some variation in belief and experience? I know which one I'd vote for.

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Excellent points!

Just curious though why you think it is understandable that the parents didn't warn the bishop ahead of time?  It seems kind of unfair to blindside them like that.  It also seems rather risky (not knowing how the leaders would react) as no one wants their daughter to be publicly humiliated or shamed by leaders.   It seems like letting the bishop know in advance would have been the right thing to do for both Savannah's sake and for the sake of the SP who's ill-prepared response would be mocked and ridiculed all over the internet.

I think it's "understandable" because they knew she wouldn't be allowed to give her prepared speech.

I do wonder why they thought it would be a good idea to have her do it when there was someone from the Stake (who presumably doesn't know Savannah) presiding on the stand.  The Bishop obviously knows her well because of her friendship with his daughter, and while I'm sure he would be a little surprised, he would at least have the context of knowing who Savannah is and having some sort of trust with her to direct the situation as needed.

But having a guy who is just there to enjoy the meeting get blindsided by a 12-year-old-girl getting up and reading a prepared statement about how she's a lesbian and looks forward to a same-sex marriage is just really disrespectful to the leadership and the congregation.  Either the parents knew what they were doing and wanted to create a scene, which is tacky and rude, or they couldn't see the situation they were helping to create, which is stupid.

If the parents really didn't want Savannah to be "publicly humiliated or shamed by leaders", then the obvious thing to do would be to involve the leaders in the situation.  It's not rocket science.  If the leaders wouldn't let Savannah get up and give her speech in the first place, then if she does it without them knowing about it beforehand, then they'll probably want to stop her while she's giving it.  The content of the speech is just as objectionable either way.  There isn't a rule that says if you can make it to the pulpit you get to say whatever you want and everyone just has to sit there and listen to it. 

As others have pointed out, that is the tradition in many wards, and we've all heard all sorts of random stuff in meetings.  But apparently "I'm a lesbian and look forward to marrying a woman and I think God is okay with that" crosses that line for LDS Sacrament meetings.   

Edited June 16, 2017 by cinepro

[Rain]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am not really sure what you have said about the parents.  Have you suggested that they were the ones that shot the video?

I wasn't talking about just the parents.  I was asking about any specific people.  I am having a hard time answering your question.  I have talked about whoever shot the video - parents, friend etc. I think though we are probably past the point of it making any difference now. So we can skip it.

Really?  

None of those say she was put up to it.  Rather, they say she was used.  ie they are not saying that the parents encouraged her to go up and share this, film it and share it with the world.  They are saying that the parents (or whoever) used the girl and her desire to share her feelings and beliefs.  

And now that I have gone through the next question I did find one post that actually said they put her up to it.  I missed that the first time around. 

____________________

Perhaps you could quote the comments calling the stake president unloving.

Jeanne: What saddens me is that this ward missed out on a loving opportunity.  Now..this girl will either grow up and grow with her own understanding with God and the church..or she will/can be shamed and go down that slippery path that leaves her outside..afraid..and hating herself.  For whatever reason she wrote all of this..and is taped..the church missed out and because of it..some ward teens are going to remember and some may walk away.

rockpond: That's an important point, Jeanne.  She was obviously sharing something that was deeply important and spiritual to her.  The message she got was:  We don't want to hear it!  And that same message was given to any other LGBT persons in the congregation.  The message sent was:  "We don't want to hear that God loves you as you are and that you have hopes and dreams.  Keep those things to yourself."

stemmelbow: I say even if she got some help from her parents, or whatever some of these posters are claiming by calling foul, you hit the nail on the head.  It doesn't matter.  What matters is love and support.  To shut people down is akin to kicking them out.  It essentially means such a person can't share him/herself in the Church.  Please...that view sucks.  Church sucks if that's what it is. 

I only went so far as page 4.  No one said directly that he was "unloving" to this point, but they express actions and assumptions of what they feel is unloving.     

 

I would be more than happy to comment on anything you would like me to.  I just have to know what you are talking about.  What things in play???

You suggested reasons why this may not be a set up. People who didn't know better shooting the video etc.  Things that may have been in play that I and others may not have known about.  So I am asking you to imagine reasons why what the SP did, may have been a good and right thing. Normally I wouldn't care, but if you are saying many are judgmental and there are possible reasons why we could be wrong then I would expect you to be able to see that it is possible that those who think he had no justification in "shutting her down" may be wrong as well.

I post and interact with people on this site to learn and understand views that are different than mine.  So yes, I consider different points of view all the time.  If I understand your question, you are asking me how I would handle gay members, believing current church policies are true.  I hope I got that right.  No one has ever asked me that question before.  So let's figure out exactly what the church believes about it's role is.

Let's look at the facts that I think the church would agree with.  

First, The only people that want to marry someone of the same gender is someone that is gay.  Would you agree with that?

lol I can imagine there are some who are not gay that would want to do that, but I find it unlikely and extremely rare so I will say yes.  

Second, One of the main mandates of the church is to bring people to Christ.  Would you agree with that?

yes

Third, the church doesn't really know for sure how God will handle those that are gay in the next life.  There has been speculation on this, but no doctrine.  Would you agree with that?

yes

Fourth, Gay marriage is a sin and against the Plan of Salvation.  Would you agree with that?

Honestly, I am not sure of that, but everything I have understood points to that. It just makes complete sense to me. If the church were to suddenly announce that they were good with gay marriage I would make it a matter of prayer and wouldn't just automatically leave the church.  I am very much aware that there are many things I do not have a clear understanding on yet.  

But it doesn't matter as I am looking for an answer to a question that relies on this being true.  

Perhaps I should let you comment on what I have written before I offer my suggestion.  I don't want to start if you feel I have misrepresented anything that the church believes.  So let me know what you think of these three facts.

Four.  

 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

So when you share an opinion such as Adam/God on this board, are you teaching false doctrine? If you think you are (which I don't) then you are consistent. If you don't think you are teaching false doctrine, then the only difference is location.

I don't think that anyone is going to mistake this discussion board as an official church meeting that was opened in and being held in the name of Jesus Christ.  In that respect context matters.  On the other hand, God holds us accountable for our thoughts, words, and deeds.

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think you know what that word means. Let me help.

She was not forceful or bitter. She was not verbally attacking anyone or anything. She was not teaching a false doctrine. She was sharing her experience, her hopes and dreams, and her testimony about God's love.

Bitter diatribe? Try again. Just remember that you are railing against a 12 year old girl.

Oh, sure, trot out the dictionary.  :-)  Let me search my thesaurus for a better word, one that might pass your muster, perhaps more neutral...  Hmmmm.  How about "discourse"?  Is that sufficiently even-handed?  <sigh>  Well, I suppose you're right, that "diatribe" is a loaded word in this case.  Thanks for calling me on it.

But whether she's 12 years old or 50, and the fact that she expressed some truths in her discourse does not matter, it is false doctrine that God wants you to have sex with and marry someone of your own gender.  Even if you were born that way.

Taking this from cinepro's summary:

I hope to find a partner and have a great job.
I hope to get married and have a family.
I know these dreams and wishes are good and right.
I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy.
I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am.
and would never ask me to live my life alone or with someone I am not attracted to.

She says that she knows that she can have all these things as a lesbian, and God is just fine with it.  Sorry, HJW, if that's not false doctrine, then Brigham Young is a ham sandwich.

I, as a straight person know perfectly well that I am not perfect just the way I am.  God has a lot of work ahead of Him to make me so, but with my cooperation He will succeed.  This young lady has a tough road ahead of her, as we all do, but if she thinks that God wants her to just go with the flow I am very certain she will discover that the flow is down a river she would not have floated down had she known the destination.  And I suspect that she has been taught about that destination but has chosen to disbelieve it.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what I said. I said she isn't claiming to teach church doctrine, and she isn't. She is sharing her opinion just like we do on this board every day. I share my unorthodox opinions all the time but that doesn't mean I'm teaching false doctrine. That means my opinions are unorthodox, just like Savannah's are unorthodox.

So when you share an opinion such as Adam/God on this board, are you teaching false doctrine? If you think you are (which I don't) then you are consistent. If you don't think you are teaching false doctrine, then the only difference is location.

They did not mess up when they made me to be gay. So you're suggesting that God did mess up?
No, I'm suggesting God did not "make her gay".
- I do believe he made me this way on purpose. Was she an accident, did God not make her, or...? What? What's false about that? Can you point to a doctrine that states God did not create gay people gay?
I have yet to see ANY conclusive medical or biological trait that would show that homosexuality is inborn.  Doctrine does not allow God to create evil, only to allow its existence.
- I believe God would tell me if I was wrong. Well, wouldn't he?
Really?  You think everyone with differing opinions are all getting their answer from God?
- I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy. She was talking about being married and having a family. Is it impossible for a person to be married and have a happy family as a lesbian? I don't think so.
This one is questionable, depending on your definition of "marriage and family".
- I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am. I agree that no one is "perfect". But she's 12. Can't we give her a little break. That's hardly a "false doctrine" worth humiliating her over, is it.
She was hardly "humiliated".  This was always going to be the result and I'm betting her parents warned her of that in advance.  If anything she's a beloved internet celebrity now (check out Huffpost!).
And doctrinally, God does not consider ANY of us to be perfect.

When I share a doctrine like Adam-God on this board I am teaching a doctrine that the Church considers false.  Therefore I would NEVER bear my testimony of it in F&T meeting.
And yes, location absolutely matters.  I guarantee you Savannah's family realized that too.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If you had a child that came to you and told you they were gay, would you love and still accept them as a gay person?

How would you react?

I would give them a hug and let them know I loved them.  And I would let them know that at some point in the future we would have to discuss what this would mean, but for now I would just show my love.
And then we would work step by step through the things that could be accepted and the things that could not.